Ausgangs-Basisraten

Keine Sachentscheidungen im aktuellen Umfang.

• Prozessuale & Unteranträge30

• Munich LD13 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Nordic-Baltic RD12 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Paris CD4 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Court of Appeal1 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —

• 2025-12-05UPC_CFI_775/2025Nordic-Baltic RDNur prozessualThe Nordic-Baltic Regional Division stayed the cost proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences and Meril pending the outcome of EPO Board of Appeal opposition proceedings against EP 3 769 722, and provisionally ordered confidentiality obligations by mutual agreement of the parties.
• 2025-10-17UPC_CFI_404/2025Munich LDNur KostenThe Munich Local Division issued a costs decision in favour of Edwards Lifesciences against Meril, ruling on the reasonableness and proportionality of claimed costs including travel expenses and multiple representatives, and awarding costs in proceedings of above-average complexity.
• 2025-09-02UPC_APP_35269/2025Nordic-Baltic RDNur prozessualOrder of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division in Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences et al. (EP 3 769 722) on a request for rectification of the decision on the merits of 21 July 2025. The prior decision on the merits found the patent invalid as granted but upheld it as amended, and found infringement of the amended patent. The operative part of that decision ordered the defendants to bear 100% of Edwards' costs in the infringement action and 75% of Edwards' costs in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The defendants requested rectification to add an obligation on Edwards to bear 25% of the defendants' costs in the revocation proceedings. The rectification request is the subject of this order.
• 2025-06-05UPC_APP_24411/2025Court of AppealVergleichThe Court of Appeal confirmed a settlement agreement between Tandem Diabetes and Roche Diabetes, terminating the appeal proceedings. The settlement arose after the Central Division Paris had dismissed the revocation action and maintained EP 2 196 231 as granted.
• 2025-06-03UPC_APP_21220/2025Munich LDNur prozessualMunich Local Division procedural order on Meril's applications (R. 353 RoP) for rectification of a decision of 4 April 2025 in infringement proceedings concerning a prosthetic heart valve patent (EP 3 669 828) between Edwards Lifesciences and Meril. Meril sought corrections to factual statements about which claims were alleged to be infringed (independent claims 1 and 12 vs. only claim 1 as independent). The order addresses the scope of rectification available under R. 353 RoP.
• 2025-04-09UPC_APP_60159/2024Munich LDNur prozessualThe Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order dealing with Meril's applications for cost reimbursement and confidentiality protection (R. 262A RoP) in the Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril proceedings. Following the judge-rapporteur's guidance, Meril withdrew the cost reimbursement applications. The order addressed the scope of confidentiality protection for legal fee invoices and related documents.
• 2025-04-09UPC_APP_59832/2024Munich LDNur prozessualProcedural order by Munich Local Division in Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences concerning costs and confidentiality applications arising from a third-party access-to-file application by Erik Krahbichler (KIPA AB). Following withdrawal of Krahbichler's access application, Meril applied for a costs decision. The court dismissed Meril's costs application because a costs decision from the Central Division Paris on a related matter had already been issued, and because proceedings about access applications under R. 262.1(b) do not automatically give rise to separate costs decisions.
• 2025-02-17UPC_APP_66551/2024Munich LDNur prozessualThe Munich Local Division rejected Meril's application for rectification of an infringement decision (ORD_598479/2023) under R. 353 RoP, finding that the alleged inaccuracies in the statement of facts did not constitute clerical errors or obvious slips warranting correction.