Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed in Heart Valve Patent Dispute
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Co. |
| Case Number | 24-1272 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit (Appeal from PTAB/District Court) |
| Duration | Dec 2023 – Mar 2024 84 Days |
| Outcome | Voluntary Dismissal — No Merits Ruling |
| Patent at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Edwards Lifesciences’ TAVR Product Lines |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Patent-holding entity asserting rights in transcatheter heart valve technology — an innovative delivery mechanism that eliminates the need for open-heart surgery.
🛡️ Defendant
Among the world’s foremost structural heart disease companies, with deep commercial investments in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technology.
Patent at Issue
This case centered on U.S. Patent No. 9,737,400 B2 — covering a percutaneously deliverable heart valve incorporating folded membrane cusps with integral leaflets — a technology area at the heart of a multi-billion-dollar medical device market.
- • US 9,737,400 B2 — Percutaneously deliverable heart valve featuring folded membrane cusps with integral leaflets.
Developing a medtech device?
Check if your heart valve design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit dismissed Case No. 24-1272 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) upon joint stipulation of the parties on March 12, 2024. Each side agreed to bear its own costs. No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was issued, and no precedential opinion was published. The underlying patent’s validity status following this dismissal is not publicly resolved by this proceeding alone.
Key Legal Issues
The designated verdict cause — Invalidity/Cancellation Action — indicates that Edwards Lifesciences mounted a challenge to the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 9,737,400 B2. Common grounds in such proceedings include obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102), or enablement/written description (35 U.S.C. § 112). The voluntary dismissal, agreed to by both parties, prevents any determination of which arguments were prevailing or failing at the appellate stage. Critically, an FRCP 42(b) dismissal at the Federal Circuit level does not constitute a ruling on the merits — leaving the underlying record’s outcome as the operative legal result for the patent’s validity posture.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in structural heart valve design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in heart valve patents
- Understand claim construction patterns
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
Active Patent Risk
Percutaneous valve designs with folded cusps
Related Filings
Monitor for continuation patents
Strategic Exit
Negotiated settlement over judicial ruling
✅ Key Takeaways
A joint Federal Circuit dismissal under FRCP 42(b) produces no precedential ruling and leaves underlying validity questions unresolved.
Search related case law →The 84-day appellate lifespan signals active settlement negotiations likely began at or before the filing date in high-stakes medtech disputes.
Explore precedents →Invalidity/cancellation appeals at the Federal Circuit remain viable leverage points for negotiating licensing outcomes.
Analyze litigation strategies →U.S. Patent No. 9,737,400 B2 remains a live patent asset requiring monitoring for any continuation filings or related family members.
Monitor this patent family →The case illustrates the value of early appellate settlement analysis in high-cost IP disputes, often preferable to prolonged uncertainty.
Analyze settlement trends →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 9,737,400 B2 (Application No. 13/326,196), covering a percutaneously deliverable heart valve with folded membrane cusps and integral leaflets.
The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
No. A voluntary dismissal under FRCP 42(b) does not constitute a ruling on patentability. The validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,737,400 B2 was not adjudicated by this Federal Circuit proceeding.
Companies operating in the medtech space, especially with percutaneous valve designs, can protect themselves by conducting robust freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis before product launch, thoroughly documenting design evolution, developing design-around strategies for high-risk elements, and strategically filing their own patents. PatSnap Eureka’s FTO tools help R&D and IP teams identify potentially blocking patents before products go to market.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Case 24-1272
- U.S. Patent No. 9,737,400 B2 — Google Patents
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.