UPC CFI 189/2024

At the UPC: Meril Group (60 cases)·Edwards Lifesciences Group (57 cases)

• 2025-10-20
  Revocation ActionPublic

  Summary: Decision of the Paris Central Division (Paris Seat) dated 20 October 2025 in the revocation action by Meril entities against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the counterclaim for infringement by Edwards regarding EP 4 151 181 B1 (prosthetic heart valve technology). The revocation action was rejected; however, the patent was maintained only in the form of Auxiliary Request 2 (amended). The infringement counterclaim was granted: Meril entities were found to infringe claims 1, 4, 6–12 as amended. Edwards was granted an injunction preventing Meril from all infringing acts with products according to those claims in Contracting Member States, with an exception for XL-size valves (exceeding 30 mm) which was denied on proportionality grounds. Meril was ordered to provide information on infringing products, recall and destroy infringing products, and publish the decision in five media. Damages are to be determined in separate proceedings. Costs of the counterclaim were borne by Meril jointly and severally; costs of the revocation action were shared (each party bears own costs given the patent amendment dynamic).

  Show the legal issues (6)

  • Inventive step assessment using holistic approach
  • Revocation action versus patent amendment
  • Infringement counterclaim
  • Proportionality of injunction for XL-size medical devices
  • Public interest exception to injunctive relief under Art. 63(1) UPCA
  • Recall and publication orders
• 2025-01-08
  Public

  Summary: Order from the Paris Central Division dated 8 January 2025 on Meril entities' application for costs (App_56782/2024) seeking reimbursement of EUR 15,000 from respondents (SWAT Medical AB and others) incurred in defending a rejected public-access-to-register application. The order clarifies that a 'decision on the merits' under R. 150 RoP means a decision concluding litigation proceedings with res judicata effect; proceedings on a public access application are not 'litigation' in that sense. The court dismissed the costs application on the basis that a public access proceeding does not produce a 'decision on the merits' that triggers the costs provisions.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Definition of 'decision on the merits' under R. 150 RoP
  • Costs in public access to register proceedings
  • Nature of R. 262 proceedings (administrative vs. litigation)
• 2024-09-17
  Public

  Summary: Central Division (Paris) order dismissing Meril's application to reject Edwards' counterclaim for infringement as inadmissible. The court retrospectively extended the two-month deadline under Rule 49 RoP by one week to 23 July 2024, finding the counterclaim timely. The court declined to hold a hearing before deciding.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Admissibility of counterclaim for infringement (Rule 49 RoP)
  • Retrospective extension of time period (Rule 9(3) RoP)
  • Timing of counterclaim