UPC APP 35269/2025
EP3769722 Unitary patent · LOW PROFILE DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE
- Case details
- Status—ActionProcedural applicationCategoryOther procedural
- Parties
- Claimants
- Edwards Lifesciences CorporationOperating co.
Representatives- Jens Olsson-Gulliksson
- Siddharth Kusumakar-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Bryce Matthewson-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Adam Rimmer-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
- Bernhard Thum-Thum & Partner
- Jonas Weickert-Thum & Partner
Respondents- Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.Operating co.
- Meril GmbHOperating co.
- SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜOperating co.
- SORMEDICA, UABOperating co.
- INTERLUX, UABOperating co.
- VAB-LOGISTIK, UABOperating co.
Representatives- Andreas von Falck-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Alexander Klicznik-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Karin Westerberg-Sandart & Partners Advokatbyrå
- Julia Ericsson-Sandart & Partners Advokatbyrå
- Kerstin Jonen-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Roman Würtenberger-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Lars-Fabian Blume-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Beatrice Wilden-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Friederike Hermes-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Division
- Nordic-Baltic RD
- Technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Sep 2, 2025
- EPO Opposition
- J A Kemp LLPAdmissible2024-03-07
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Nordic-Baltic RD | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Johansson | Locked |
| Judge Kai Härmand | Locked |
| Judge Mélanie Bessaud | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Wilhelm | Locked |
At the UPC: Edwards Lifesciences Group (57 cases)·Meril Group (60 cases)
This dispute contains 7 other proceedings
UPC CFI 775/2025·UPC CFI 776/2025·UPC CFI 777/2025·CC 14226/2024·UPC CFI 380/2023 and 2 more
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Nordic-Baltic RD·2025
- 2025-09-02
Summary: Order 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.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Rectification of decision under R. 353 RoP
- Cost allocation on partial success
- Patent amended by auxiliary request and found infringed
- C575920E47595773528373DE0043D520_en.pdf2025-09-02EN