UPC CFI 15/2023
26. Juni 2023·EP3646825 · A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 459987/2023
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Edwards Lifesciences CorporationUnternehmen
Vertreter- Boris Kreye-Bird & Bird LLP
- Elsa Tzschoppe-Bird & Bird LLP
- Bernhard Thummitwirkend-Thum & Partner
- Bryce Matthewsonmitwirkend-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Jonas Weickertmitwirkend-Thum & Partner
- Siddharth Kusumakarmitwirkend-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Tessa Waldronmitwirkend-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
Beklagte- Meril GmbHUnternehmen
- Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Andreas Johannes Nikolaus von Falck-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Andreas von (hölder)
- Roman Würtenberger-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Lukas Wollenschlaeger-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Beatrice Wilden-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Alexander Klicznik-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Felipe Zilly-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Peter-Michael Weissemitwirkend-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Ole Dirksmitwirkend-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Eva Maria Thörnermitwirkend-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 1. Aug. 2023
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 15. Nov. 2024
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Matthias Zigann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Margot Kokke | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Tobias Pichlmaier | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Stefan Wilhelm | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Edwards Lifesciences Group (57 Verfahren)·Meril Group (60 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 20 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 166/2025·UPC CoA 21/2025·UPC CoA 27/2025·UPC CFI 815/2024·UPC APP 60159/2024 und 15 weitere
5 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
UPC CFI 202/2025·UPC CFI 674/2024·UPC CoA 530/2024·UPC CoA 464/2024·UPC CFI 255/2023
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2024-11-15Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Munich Local Division full merits decision finding that Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd and Meril GmbH infringed Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's patent EP 3 646 825 (a heart valve technology patent). The court ordered a permanent injunction to cease and desist from the infringing acts (transcatheter heart valve products) across all UPC contracting states where the patent has effect, recall of infringing products from commercial channels (excluding devices already scheduled for patient implantation by 15 November 2024), destruction of infringing stock, disclosure of information about distribution and quantities, publication of the decision, and an obligation to pay damages (quantum to be determined separately). The defendant's counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, the patent being upheld as valid. Costs were addressed separately.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (7)
- UPC jurisdiction over pre-June 2023 infringement acts
- Competence of chosen German local division
- Bifurcation / referral of revocation counterclaim to Central Division and subsequent stay
- Scope of injunctive relief under Art. 34 UPCA across all contracting states
- Third-party interests in corrective measures (Art. 64(4) UPCA)
- Medical device / patient safety carve-out in recall/destruction orders
- Damages liability and quantum proceedings
- 2024-09-06Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order in Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril concerning EP 3 646 825, addressing defendants' arguments that the Central Division Paris first-instance decision on the patent amendment application had failed to consider key invalidity arguments. The judge-rapporteur referred the matter to the full panel, noting that the appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal would address the alleged deficiencies in the Paris decision.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Sufficiency of reasoning in first-instance decision (right to be heard)
- Referral to full panel (R. 102.1 RoP)
- Invalidity arguments not addressed in Paris Central Division decision
- Counterclaim for revocation
- 2023-09-29Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order setting out requirements for using official CMS forms and workflows, and clarifying that a security for costs application under Rule 158.1 RoP requires demonstration that the opposing party's financial circumstances give reason to fear a cost order cannot be enforced.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Security for costs (Rule 158.1 RoP)
- CMS workflows (Rule 4.1 RoP)
- Admissibility of applications
- 2023-08-23Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division addressed Meril GmbH's request to align deadline for filing the preliminary objection with the deadline running for co-defendant Meril Life Sciences, granting a moderate extension while noting that alignment can also be achieved by shortening later deadlines.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Deadline alignment for co-defendants
- Deadline extension Rule 9.3 RoP
- CMS access issues
- 2023-08-10Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division granted Meril GmbH's deadline extension request for filing a preliminary objection, allowing harmonisation of deadlines across co-defendants given service issues and CMS access problems encountered in the early days of the UPC.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Deadline extension Rule 9.3 RoP
- CMS access issues
- Harmonisation of deadlines for co-defendants
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| workflow geschlossen | 2025-04-03 | Öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-26 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-02-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-02-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Confirmation of appointment | 2025-02-21 | Öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-02-18 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-02-18 | Nicht öffentlich |
| R 353 final | 2025-02-18 | Öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293-Receipt | 2025-02-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences for infringement of EP 3 646 825, a heart valve technology patent, before the Munich Local Division. Following bifurcation and the Central Division Paris upholding the patent in amended form, the Munich Local Division found infringement of transcatheter heart valve products, granted a permanent injunction across all UPC contracting states, ordered recall and destruction (with a carve-out for XL devices already scheduled for patient implantation), and awarded EUR 663,000 in preliminary damages. The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed.
UPC has jurisdiction over acts of infringement committed before 1 June 2023
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 3(c) and 32(1)(a) UPCAHinweis: The Munich Local Division held that the UPC's jurisdiction extends to pre-UPCA infringement acts, in the absence of conflicting intertemporal provisions.
Infringement action may proceed and be decided despite referral of counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 32(3b) UPCA; R. 295(c)(i) and (m) RoPHinweis: Following bifurcation and the Central Division Paris upholding the patent (in amended form), the local division found it was required to proceed with the infringement decision; a stay post-central division decision is limited to exceptional circumstances (manifestly prima facie erroneous decisions).
Injunctive relief and corrective measures may be ordered across all contracting member states where the patent has effect
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 34 UPCAHinweis: The court confirmed that pan-European relief is available once infringement is proven for at least one contracting member state, which Edwards established.
Third-party interests (patient safety) must be considered in scope of corrective measures
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 64(4) UPCAHinweis: The court partially accepted this argument, carving out XL devices already scheduled for patient implantation by 15 November 2024 from the recall and destruction orders.
Stay of infringement proceedings warranted because Central Division Paris decision was manifestly and prima facie erroneous for failing to consider key invalidity arguments
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 295(c)(i) RoPBegründung: The local division held that a stay post-central division decision is only available in exceptional circumstances where the decision is manifestly and prima facie erroneous; the alleged failure to address certain arguments did not meet this threshold, and appeal proceedings were already pending.
Patent EP 3 646 825 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCABegründung: The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed; the patent had been upheld (in amended form) by the Central Division Paris Section and was held valid for purposes of the infringement action.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
- Levi (Exhibit HLNK 39)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- Alon (Exhibit HLNK 49)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- Fontaine (Exhibit HLNK 25)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
- EP 3 583 920 B1 (family member)Hintergrund
The excerpt references that the patent was upheld by the Central Division Paris in its auxiliary request 2 form, meaning the infringement decision was based on amended claim scope. Meril argued the Paris Central Division failed to address added-matter resulting from omission of 'sealing device' feature, novelty attacks based on specific embodiments of Levi, and inventive step starting from Alon alone or combined with Fontaine — but these were appeal points rather than claim construction issues resolved in the infringement judgment itself.