UPC APP 59832/2024
Nov 8, 2024·EP3669828 · PROSTHETIC HEART VALVE
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionGenericCategoryFile-access requests (R. 262.1(b))
- Parties
- Claimants
- Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.Operating co.
Representatives- Roman Hans-Werner Wuertenberger-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Andreas von Falck-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Lukas Wollenschlaeger-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Alexander Klicznik-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Beatrice Wilden-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Felipe Zilly-Hogan Lovells International LLP
Respondents- Edwards Lifesciences CorporationOperating co.
- Meril GmbHOperating co.
- Meril Italy srlOperating co.
- Name withheld (GDPR)
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
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Apr 9, 2025
- EPO Opposition
- Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.Admissible2022-02-04
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked |
| Judge Matthias Zigann | Locked |
| Judge Tobias Pichlmaier | Locked |
| Judge Margot Kokke | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Wilhelm | Locked |
At the UPC: Meril Group (60 cases)·Edwards Lifesciences Group (57 cases)
This dispute contains 13 other proceedings
UPC CFI 1160/2026·UPC CoA 932/2025·UPC CoA 933/2025·UPC CFI 404/2025·UPC CFI 405/2025 and 8 more
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
- 2025-04-09
Summary: Procedural order by Munich Local Division in Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences concerning costs and confidentiality applications arising from a third-party access-to-file application by Erik Krahbichler (KIPA AB). Following withdrawal of Krahbichler's access application, Meril applied for a costs decision. The court dismissed Meril's costs application because a costs decision from the Central Division Paris on a related matter had already been issued, and because proceedings about access applications under R. 262.1(b) do not automatically give rise to separate costs decisions.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Costs decision for third-party access-to-file proceedings under R. 262.1(b) RoP
- Withdrawal of access application and resulting costs allocation
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case closed | 2025-10-29 | Not public |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-04-09 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-04-09 | Not public |
| R 265 final | 2025-04-09 | Public |
| R 265 final | 2025-04-09 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-04-09 | Not public |
| R 265 final | 2025-04-09 | Public |
| Further submission | 2025-03-21 | Not public |
| Further submission | 2025-03-21 | Not public |
| further comments | 2025-03-17 | Not public |