UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 15/2023

26. Juni 2023·EP3646825 · A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER

Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 459987/2023

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Munich LD
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
1. Aug. 2023
Letzte Entscheidung
15. Nov. 2024
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Munich LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Matthias ZigannGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Margot KokkeGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Tobias PichlmaierGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Stefan WilhelmGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Edwards Lifesciences Group (57 Verfahren)·Meril Group (60 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 2024-11-15
    Infringement 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
  • 2024-09-06
    Infringement 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
  • 2023-09-29
    Infringement 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
  • 2023-08-23
    Infringement 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
  • 2023-08-10
    Infringement 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
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
workflow geschlossen2025-04-03Öffentlich
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-26Nicht öffentlich
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-02-21Nicht öffentlich
Confirmation of appointment2025-02-21Öffentlich
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-02-18Nicht öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-02-18Nicht öffentlich
R 353 final2025-02-18Öffentlich
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-02-11Nicht öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

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.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • UPC has jurisdiction over acts of infringement committed before 1 June 2023

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 3(c) and 32(1)(a) UPCA

    Hinweis: 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) RoP

    Hinweis: 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 UPCA

    Hinweis: 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) UPCA

    Hinweis: 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.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • 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) RoP

    Begründung: 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 UPCA

    Begründung: 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.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik
Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.
  • 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
Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

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.