By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. et al. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 19-149-MN (D.Del. June 6, 2019), the Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction of Plaintiffs, Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. and Evalve, Inc., seeking to enjoin Defendants, Edwards Lifesciences Corp. and Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, from manufacturing their PASCAL mitral valve system in the United States.  Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants’ product infringed claims of U.S. Patent Numbers 7,288,097 (“the ‘097 patent), 6,752,813 (“the ‘813 patent”), 7,563,267 (“the ‘267 patent”, 7,736,388 (“the ‘388 patent”) and 8,057,493 (“the ‘493 patent”) (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”).  Id. at *4.

In denying the motion, the Court found that, although Plaintiffs did show a likelihood of success as to infringement of the asserted claims of the ’097 and ’813 patents, they failed to show that the obviousness challenges asserted by Defendants lacked substantial merit.  Id. at * 7-60.  Plaintiffs also did not clearly show that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm if an injunction was not granted, and that the public interest weighed in favor of enjoining the U.S. manufacture of the PASCAL mitral valve system for sale in Europe.  Id.  In fact, the Court found that the public interest weighed against granting the preliminary injunction because the products are not interchangeable products, do not involve interchangeable procedures, and healthcare providers and patients would benefit from having both of the potentially life-saving products available in the market.  Id. at *59.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

The case is yet another example of the fact that preliminary injunctions and TROs are extraordinary reliefs and are only granted in the District of Delaware in rare situations after a movant clearly establishes (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of the claims, (2) irreparable harm is likely if an injunction is not granted, (3) the balance of the equities tips in favor of the movant, and (4) granting an injunction is in the public interest.