The Court of Appeal confirmed the First Instance Court decision and held that Occlutech’s devices do not infringe AGA’s patent regarding septal occlusion devices, which feature braided metal strands and have a collapsed configuration for delivery through a channel in a patient’s body. The Court held – with reference to Article 69 EPC and the prosecution file – that AGA’s patent is limited to devices which have clamps on the opposed ends of the device. Occlutech’s septal occlusion devices, which instead have strands that are welded at one end of the device were held to fall outside of the scope of protection. The Court also dismissed AGA’s argument of equivalence, because with the attacked devices occlusion is achieved in a ‘substantially different way’.

This decision is in line with the judgments of the UK Court of Appeal in the parallel procedure but deviates from the German judgment, in which Occlutech was found to infringe AGA’s patent. However, no reference to these foreign judgments is made.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.


To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.

Kluwer IP Law

The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?

Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF