UPC CFI 15/2023

Jun 26, 2023·EP3646825 · A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER

Action number: ACT 459987/2023

Case details: Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties: Claimants
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationOperating co.
Representatives
Boris Kreye-Bird & Bird LLP
Elsa Tzschoppe-Bird & Bird LLP
Bernhard Thumsupporting-Thum & Partner
Bryce Matthewsonsupporting-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
Jonas Weickertsupporting-Thum & Partner
Siddharth Kusumakarsupporting-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
Tessa Waldronsupporting-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
Respondents
Meril GmbHOperating co.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.Operating co.
Representatives
Andreas Johannes Nikolaus von Falck-Hogan Lovells International LLP
Andreas von (hölder)
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: Matthias Zigann
Margot Kokke
Tobias Pichlmaier
Stefan Wilhelm
Technology: Instruments
Medical technology
Language: English
First decided: Aug 1, 2023
Last decision: Nov 15, 2024

How this compares

The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.

	Infringement found	Median days to first decision
All UPC	53% (62/117)	124
Munich LD	Locked	Locked
Judge Matthias Zigann	Locked	Locked
Judge Margot Kokke	Locked	Locked
Judge Tobias Pichlmaier	Locked	Locked
Judge Stefan Wilhelm	Locked	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 patent

This 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

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2023

Decisions

2024-11-15
Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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 ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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 ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Security for costs (Rule 158.1 RoP)
- CMS workflows (Rule 4.1 RoP)
- Admissibility of applications
2023-08-23
Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Deadline alignment for co-defendants
- Deadline extension Rule 9.3 RoP
- CMS access issues
2023-08-10
Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Deadline extension Rule 9.3 RoP
- CMS access issues
- Harmonisation of deadlines for co-defendants

Documents

Show all 637 documents

Document title	Date	Public
workflow geschlossen	2025-04-03	Public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative	2025-02-26	Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative	2025-02-24	Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative	2025-02-24	Not public
Outcome of the Order	2025-02-21	Not public
Confirmation of appointment	2025-02-21	Public
Headnote-and-Keywords	2025-02-18	Not public
Outcome of the Order	2025-02-18	Not public
R 353 final	2025-02-18	Public
Application-RoP293-Receipt	2025-02-11	Not public

Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.

Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

UPC has jurisdiction over acts of infringement committed before 1 June 2023
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 3(c) and 32(1)(a) UPCA
Note: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 32(3b) UPCA; R. 295(c)(i) and (m) RoP
Note: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 34 UPCA
Note: 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
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 64(4) UPCA
Note: 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.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Stay of infringement proceedings warranted because Central Division Paris decision was manifestly and prima facie erroneous for failing to consider key invalidity arguments
RespondentLegal basis: R. 295(c)(i) RoP
Reason: 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)
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA
Reason: 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.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

UPC jurisdiction over pre-UPCA infringement acts bifurcation and referral of counterclaim for revocation to Central Division stay of infringement proceedings post-central division decision limited to exceptional circumstances pan-UPC injunctive relief under Art. 34 UPCA upon proof of infringement in one contracting member state third-party and public interests considered in scope of corrective measures under Art. 64(4) UPCA claimant's choice among competent German local divisions determines competence

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on

References cited and the role they played.

Levi (Exhibit HLNK 39)Obviousness combination
Alon (Exhibit HLNK 49)Obviousness combination
Fontaine (Exhibit HLNK 25)Obviousness combination
EP 3 583 920 B1 (family member)Background

Claim construction notes

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.