Aortic Innovations, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences, Co. et al.
Infringement action filed 28 Sep 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 10 Oct 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for defendant.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US11129735B2US10987236B1US10966846B2US10881538B1
- Case no.
- 1:21-cv-01377
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Jon P McCalla
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 28 Sep 2021 – 10 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 742 days
- Basis of termination
- Judgment on the merits for Defendant
- Products & marks
- Sapien 3 Ultra TAVR device (transcatheter aortic valve replacements)
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Transcatheter valve repair having improved paravalvular seal
The abstract has been amended to the following: “A heart valve replacement device for endovascular repair is provided. The heart valve replacement device includes a plurality of fibers for creating a seal with an anatomy of the patient. A heart valve carried by an inner graft covering. The plurality of fibers form an outer seal for preventing paravalvular leaks between the replacement heart valve and the native valve of a patient.”
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 28 Sep 2021
- Earliest priority
- 7 Nov 2012
- Est. expiry
- 6 Dec 2032
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2022-00549 · filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corp.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHAHRIARI, ALI
- Classification
- A61F2/856A61F2/07A61F2/24A61F2/962A61F2/82A61F2/06A61F2/89A61F2/90A61F2/86
- Prosecution counsel
- Aortic Innovations, LLC
- Examiner
- EDWARDS, JERRAH
Transcatheter aortic valve repair having improved paravalvular seal
A transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) device includes a paravalvular seal that includes outwardly extending fibers that create a seal with the aortic annulus when the TAVR is deployed.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 27 Apr 2021
- Earliest priority
- 7 Nov 2012
- Est. expiry
- 6 Dec 2032
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2022-00556 · Patentability · filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corp.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHAHRIARI, ALI
- Classification
- A61F2/856A61F2/24A61F2/82A61F2/962A61F2/07A61F2/06
- Prosecution counsel
- Aortic Innovations, LLC
- Examiner
- DIETERLE, JENNIFER
Also asserted in this case
2 moreThe docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Aortic Innovations, LLC
- Core tech
- A61F2/856A61F2/07A61F2/24A61F2/962
- Counsel
- Adam Wyatt Poff · Alan P. Block · Caroline E. Burks · Casey Shomaker · Geoffrey L. Smith · Joel L. Thollander · John B. Campbell Jr. · John F. Garvish II · John Yang · Lauren L. Fornarotto · Robert M. Vrana
- Firm
- Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
Edwards Lifesciences, Co.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Anthony David Raucci · Brian C. Barnes · Brian C. Horne · Brian P. Egan · Christy G. Lea · Craig S. Summers · John B. Sganga · Joshua J. Stowell · Mark Vorder-Bruegge · Matthew M. Lubozynski
- Firm
- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
- Also named
- Edwards Lifesciences (US), Inc. · Edwards Lifesciences, LLC
Counsel of record
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“JUDGMENT of non-infringement of United States Patent Nos. 10,881,538, 10,966,846, 10,987,236, and 11,129,735 is entered in favor of Edwards for the reason that Edwards does not infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any Asserted Claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,881,538, 10,966,846, 10,987,236, and 11,129,735, and as such, Aortic shall take nothing from Edwards as regards such patents. Final judgment is hereby entered in favor of Edwards and against Aortic on Aortic’s claims for infringement of the ’538, ’846, ’236, and ’735 Patents. Accordingly, Aortic’s complaint and infringement claims against Edwards are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Edwards’ counterclaims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot, without prejudice to reinstatement in the event the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remands this case back to this Court, in whole or in part. This Judgment in favor of Edwards and against Aortic is FINAL and APPEALABLE. This Judgment is without prejudice to the parties’ right to appeal any prior or future orders issued by this Court. This Judgment is without prejudice to Edwards right to file a motion to declare this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and to award attorneys’ fees and costs, or to file any other motion for attorneys’ fees and/or costs, which may be filed at any time up until the earlier of (a) thirty days after a mandate issues from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (in the event of an appeal), or (b) within twenty (20) days after the deadline passes for filing a Notice of Appeal (in the event no appeal is filed). This judgment is also without prejudice to Aortic’s rights to challenge any motion by Edwards to declare this case exceptional and/or to seek attorneys’ fees and/or costs.”
Case 1:21-cv-01377 · D. Del. · closed 10 October 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:21-cv-01377?
1:21-cv-01377 is a patent infringement action brought by Aortic Innovations, LLC against Edwards Lifesciences, Co., filed on 28 Sep 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 10 October 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:21-cv-01377?
US11129735B2 (“Transcatheter valve repair having improved paravalvular seal”), assigned to AORTIC INNOVATIONS, LLC, currently active; US10987236B1 (“Transcatheter aortic valve repair having improved paravalvular seal”), assigned to AORTIC INNOVATIONS, LLC, currently active; US10966846B2 (“Device for endovascular aortic repair”), assigned to AORTIC INNOVATIONS, LLC; US10881538B1 (“Method for aortic repair and aortic replacement”), assigned to AORTIC INNOVATIONS, LLC. The record also lists Sapien 3 Ultra TAVR device (transcatheter aortic valve replacements).
How was case 1:21-cv-01377 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for defendant. The termination text reads: “JUDGMENT of non-infringement of United States Patent Nos. 10,881,538, 10,966,846, 10,987,236, and 11,129,735 is entered in favor of Edwards for the reason that Edwards does not infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any Asserted Claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,881,538, 10,966,846, 10,987,236, and 11,129,735, and as such, Aortic shall take nothing from Edwards as regards such patents. Final judgment is hereby entered in favor of Edwards and against Aortic on Aortic’s claims for infringement of the ’538, ’846, ’236, and ’735 Patents. Accordingly, Aortic’s complaint and infringe
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:21-cv-01377 take?
742 calendar days, from filing on 28 Sep 2021 to closure on 10 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:21-cv-01377?
Chief Judge Jon P McCalla presided. Adam Wyatt Poff, Alan P. Block, Caroline E. Burks, Casey Shomaker, Geoffrey L. Smith, Joel L. Thollander, John B. Campbell Jr., John F. Garvish II, John Yang, Lauren L. Fornarotto and Robert M. Vrana are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Aortic Innovations. Anthony David Raucci, Brian C. Barnes, Brian C. Horne, Brian P. Egan, Christy G. Lea, Craig S. Summers, John B. Sganga, Joshua J. Stowell, Mark Vorder-Bruegge and Matthew M. Lubozynski appear for defendant Edwards Lifesciences.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:21-cv-01377 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.