- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Edwards Lifesciences CorporationUnternehmen
Vertreter- Bryce Matthewsonmitwirkend-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Adam Rimmer-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Siddharth Kusumakarmitwirkend-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Boris Kreye-Bird & Bird LLP
- Elsa Tzschoppe-Bird & Bird LLP
- Ioana Hategan-Bird & Bird LLP
- Bernhard Thummitwirkend-Thum & Partner
- Jonas Weickertmitwirkend-Thum & Partner
- Daniel Downmitwirkend-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
Beklagte- Meril GmbHUnternehmen
- Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.Unternehmen
- Meril Italy srlUnternehmen
Vertreter- Roman Hans-Werner Wuertenberger-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Andreas von Falck-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Lukas Wollenschlaeger-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Felipe Zilly-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Alexander Klicznik-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Hans-Roman Würtenberger
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 20. Dez. 2024
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 5. Feb. 2025
- EPA-Einspruch
- Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.Zulässig2022-02-04
| 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 13 weitere Verfahren
UPC CFI 1160/2026·UPC CoA 932/2025·UPC CoA 933/2025·UPC CFI 404/2025·UPC CFI 405/2025 und 8 weitere
1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2025-04-04Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, and Meril Italy S.r.l. concerning transcatheter heart valve (Myval THV) and EP 3 669 828. The court found infringement, dismissed the invalidity counterclaim (patent valid), and ordered: injunction, recall, seizure and destruction, disclosure of sales data, provisional damages of EUR 663,000, publication of decision in five media outlets. Decision immediately and directly enforceable from date of service. Key headnotes: jurisdiction for multiple defendants with commercial relationship; problem-solution approach for inventive step; cease-and-desist without penalty clause insufficient.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- Jurisdiction over multiple defendants (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA)
- Inventive step - problem-solution approach
- Cease-and-desist without penalty clause insufficient
- Immediate enforceability (Rule 354.1 RoP)
- Infringement by transcatheter heart valve
- 2025-02-05Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division issued a scheduling order summoning the parties to the oral hearing on 11 February 2025 in the infringement action (with counterclaim for revocation) brought by Edwards Lifesciences against Meril entities concerning EP 3 669 828.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Scheduling of oral hearing
- Infringement action with counterclaim for revocation
- 2024-12-20Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order following the interim conference in the Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril infringement action, setting out preparation requirements for the oral hearing and granting leave to change the claim to include Romania following its accession to the Unitary Patent system.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
- Pre-trial preparation
- R.105.5 RoP
- Amendment to claim
- R.263 RoP
- Romania accession to UP system
- Transcatheter heart valve infringement
- 2024-07-29Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Munich Local Division issued a case management order fixing dates for the interim conference and oral hearing in this infringement action concerning heart valve technology, balancing the claimant's right to a hearing within one year of service with defendants' representative availability constraints.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Case management – scheduling of interim conference and oral hearing
- Right to oral hearing within one year of service
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Note | 2026-05-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Note | 2026-04-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-04-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-04-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Fee | 2026-04-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Proof of payment | 2026-04-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Applicant | 2026-04-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Applicant | 2026-04-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Applicant | 2026-04-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Applicant | 2026-04-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, and Meril Italy S.r.l. at the Munich Local Division for infringement of EP 3 669 828 covering a prosthetic heart valve, based on Meril's Myval THV transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The court found all three defendants jointly and severally liable for infringement, dismissed Meril's revocation counterclaim upholding patent validity, and awarded Edwards an injunction, recall, destruction, disclosure, EUR 663,000 provisional damages, and publication of the decision in five trade journals.
multiple defendants domiciled in different member states may be sued at one UPC division if they have a commercial relationship and the action concerns the same infringement of the same European patent designations
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCAHinweis: Headnote 1: the court interpreted 'same infringement' as requiring accusation of infringing the same national designations of the same European patent by the same product, aligning with UPCA's goal of overcoming fragmented litigation.
EP 3 669 828 (prosthetic heart valve) is valid and not obvious over the prior art
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC; Art. 65 UPCAHinweis: The court upheld the patent on inventive step, applying the problem-solution approach as the primary tool (Headnote 2).
a cease-and-desist declaration without penalty clause from only some group defendants does not eliminate the risk of repetition
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63 UPCAHinweis: Headnote 3: injunction remains necessary even where some group members filed cease-and-desist declarations without penalty clauses, as group companies could reorganise to continue infringement.
Meril defendants infringe EP 3 669 828 by marketing the Myval THV transcatheter heart valve
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCAHinweis: The court found infringement and granted injunction, recall, seizure, destruction, information disclosure, provisional damages of EUR 663,000, and publication of decision in five media outlets.
EP 3 669 828 lacks inventive step and should be revoked
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC; Art. 138(1)(a) EPCBegründung: The invalidity counterclaim was dismissed; the court found the patent valid applying the problem-solution approach, concluding the claimed heart valve design was not obvious over the prior art.
cease-and-desist declarations filed by some Meril defendants suffice to negate the need for a court injunction
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63 UPCABegründung: Court held that partial cease-and-desist declarations without penalty clauses from some group members do not adequately protect the patentee where the group as a whole can reorganise to continue infringement.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
The claims cover a prosthetic heart valve (transcatheter aortic valve replacement). The court interpreted the claims of EP 3 669 828 to cover the Myval THV design; the invalidity counterclaim required the court to assess whether the claimed valve design was obvious, applying the problem-solution approach to the prior art in the cardiac implant field.