View all cases
- Case details
- Status—ActionProcedural applicationCategoryOther procedural
- Parties
- Claimants
- Edwards Lifesciences CorporationOperating co.
Representatives- Boris Kreye-Bird & Bird LLP
- Elsa Tzschoppe-Bird & Bird LLP
- Bernhard Thumsupporting-Thum & Partner
- Jonas Weickertsupporting-Thum & Partner
- Siddharth Kusumakarsupporting-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Tessa Waldronsupporting-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Bryce Matthewsonsupporting-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
Respondents- Meril GmbHOperating co.
- Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.Operating co.
Representatives- Andreas von Falck-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- 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 Weissesupporting-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Ole Dirkssupporting-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Eva Maria Thörnersupporting-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Division
- Munich LD
- Judges
- Technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Jan 23, 2025
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked |
| Judge Matthias Zigann | Locked |
At the UPC: Edwards Lifesciences Group (57 cases)·Meril Group (60 cases)
Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patentThis dispute contains 20 other proceedings
UPC CoA 166/2025·UPC CoA 21/2025·UPC CoA 27/2025·UPC CFI 815/2024·UPC APP 60159/2024 and 15 more
5 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CFI 202/2025·UPC CFI 674/2024·UPC CoA 530/2024·UPC CoA 464/2024·UPC CFI 255/2023
Decisions
- 2025-01-23
Summary: The Munich Local Division dismissed Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.'s application to partially stay cost-assessment proceedings pending the outcome of a Court of Appeal case, finding that R. 295(d) RoP allows only a full stay at the joint request of both parties and does not authorise a partial stay.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Stay of proceedings under R. 295(d) RoP
- Scope of partial stay in cost-assessment proceedings
- Case management powers of court
Documents
- 0FA82CAA062931F94E1EE2CC978E7453_en.pdf2025-01-23EN