The equivalent concept in Europe would be added matter in terms of intermediate generalization, but it is much harder to prevail on such a theory in U.S. court.
Context:
- In the Unified Patent Court (UPC), Edwards Lifesciences is known as one of the first plaintiffs to start a multi-patent campaign and to have succeeded repeatedly (November 26, 2025 ip fray article).
- In the U.S., Edwards is defending against against non-practicing entity (NPE) Aortic Innovations LLC (not to be confused for AorticLab). It won the first of two cases when the Federal Circuit affirmed a non-infringement ruling last year (October 27, 2025 Fed. Cir. opinion (PDF)) based on Edwards’s SAPIEN 3 heart valve being only balloon-expandable, but not self-expandable.
- We always take note when companies that are primarily known for asserting patents also achieve great results as defendants, and vice versa. Examples:
- Nokia (July 12, 2025 ip fray article)
- Abbott (see, e.g., July 4, 2024 ip fray article and February 6, 2026 ip fray article)
- Philips (March 4, 2026 ip fray article)
- OPPO (March 13, 2026 ip fray article)
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
Counsel
Counsel for prevailing defendant Edwards Lifesciences (three different legal entities) as listed by the court:
- Brian P. Egan, Anthony D. Raucci, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL, Wilmington, DE; Christy G. Lea, Joshua J. Stowell, Brian C. Barnes, KNOBBE MARTENS, Irvine, CA; Brian C. Horne, KNOBBE MARTENS, Los Angeles, CA; Alan E. Littmann, Doug Winnard, Michael T. Pieja, Xaviere N. Giroud, Madeline R. Thompson, Oren Kriegel, Katherine P. Kieckhafer, GOLDMAN ISMAIL TOMASELLI BRENNAN & BAUM LLP, Chicago IL
Counsel for plaintiff Aortic Innovations LLC as listed by the court:
- Adam W. Poff, Robert M. Vrana, Jennifer P. Siew, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, DE; John Campbell, Geoffrey L. Smith, Stone Martin, MCKOOL SMITH, P.C., Austin, TX; Casey L. Shomaker, MCKOOL SMITH, P.C., Dallas, TX