UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 434/2024

Jul 23, 2024·EP4151181 Unitary patent · PROSTHETIC HEART VALVE

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Counterclaim for infringement
Category
Counterclaim for infringement
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Paris CD
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Oct 20, 2025
EPO Opposition
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 foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Paris CDLockedLocked
Judge Paolo CatallozziLockedLocked
Judge Tatyana ZhilovaLockedLocked
Judge Elisabetta PapaLockedLocked

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

UPC CFI 676/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris CD·2024

Decisions
  • 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
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-04-24Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-09Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-09Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-09Not public
Application document Defendant2025-12-09Not public
Receipt2025-12-09Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-21Not public
Application document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Receipt2025-11-21Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-21Not public