UPC Analytics
ENDE

Decisions

DateCaseDivisionActionMotionOutcomeSummary
2026-03-16UPC_CoA_3/2026Court of AppealAppeal RoP220.1motionName.appeal_decisionDismissedThe Court of Appeal dismissed Ecovacs' appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division's refusal to grant an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence (R. 197 RoP) regarding Roborock vacuum cleaners at the IFA 2025 exhibition. The Court held that Ecovacs had breached its duty of candour under R. 192.3 RoP by omitting and distorting material facts (including proportionality-relevant information) in its ex parte application, and that such omissions cannot be cured by later submissions. The appeal was therefore rejected and Ecovacs ordered to bear Roborock's appeal costs.
2026-02-24UPC_CFI_735/2024Mannheim LDInfringement ActionInfringement meritsoutcomeName.otherThe Mannheim Local Division issued a decision in TRUMPF Laser UK v. IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 2 951 625 (optical apparatus for laser light), addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation; the outcome on infringement/validity requires additional pages not captured in the excerpt.
2026-02-17UPC_CoA_937/2025Court of AppealAppeal RoP220.1motionName.appeal_decisionProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Bart van den Broek) rejected the bioMérieux companies' request to stay the UPC revocation appeal proceedings pending EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3 756 767. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, holding that UPC and EPO decisions on patent validity are not irreconcilable and that EPO developments can be factored into the appeal later. The court also rejected the request for extension of the deadline for the Statement of Grounds of Appeal, finding more efficient means (such as hearing appeals together under R. 220.5 RoP) available.
2026-02-03UPC_CoA_8/2025Court of AppealGeneric applicationProceduralSettledFollowing the conclusion of appeal proceedings and a settlement agreement between Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG and Bhagat Textile Engineers on payment of procedural costs (arising from the infringement judgment UPC_CFI_241/2023 and the appeal UPC_CoA_8/2025 decision of 9 December 2025), the Court of Appeal ordered the release and transfer to Oerlikon of the EUR 19,000 security deposit provided by Bhagat pursuant to the security for costs order of 30 October 2025. Bhagat consented to the transfer.
2026-02-03UPC_CoA_8/2025Court of AppealGeneric applicationProceduralSettledItalian-language version of the Court of Appeal order (Emmanuel Gougé) ordering the release and transfer to Oerlikon of EUR 19,000 security deposit provided by Bhagat, following settlement of cost payment obligations in the infringement and appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 145 848. Identical substance to the English version.
2025-12-09UPC_CoA_8/2025Court of AppealAppeal RoP220.1motionName.appeal_decisionoutcomeName.otherCourt of Appeal decision on damages and costs in appeal by Bhagat Textile Engineers against the first-instance infringement decision (EP 2 145 848). The CoA confirmed that Bhagat was at least negligent (Art. 68(1) UPCA) having exhibited the infringing product at ITMA 2023 without checking the patent landscape. Oerlikon's claims for moral/reputational prejudice were rejected as insufficiently substantiated. The CoA upheld the CFI's cost allocation (Bhagat to bear 80% of first-instance costs). The CoA determined the damages quantum.
2025-12-05UPC_CFI_775/2025Nordic-Baltic RDApplication RoP262AProceduralProcedural onlyThe Nordic-Baltic Regional Division stayed the cost proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences and Meril pending the outcome of EPO Board of Appeal opposition proceedings against EP 3 769 722, and provisionally ordered confidentiality obligations by mutual agreement of the parties.
2025-12-05UPC_CFI_712/2025Dusseldorf LDApplication for provisional measuresPreliminary injunctionPI grantedThe Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction to Roche against A. Menarini Diagnostics for infringement of EP 1 962 668 B1 (implantable glucose sensor), ordering a recall and seizure of infringing sensors in France, Italy, and Germany, with an order to disclose distribution information and payment of EUR 32,051 provisional costs.
2025-12-02UPC_CoA_894/2025Court of AppealApplication Rop 223ProceduralProcedural onlyOrder of the Court of Appeal single judge on Windhager Handelsgesellschaft's application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) of its appeal against the Mannheim Local Division judgment largely upholding bellissa HAAS GmbH's infringement action for EP 2 223 589 and rejecting Windhager's revocation counterclaim. Windhager alleged obvious errors in the first-instance assessment of direct infringement and the rejection of the revocation counterclaim. The order addressed the admissibility of the application (corrected after formality defects) and the substantive criteria for granting suspensive effect.
2025-10-30UPC_CoA_8/2025Court of AppealApplication For CostsCostsCosts onlyThe Court of Appeal (Panel 1b: Grabinski, Gougé, Germano, Checcacci, Wilhelm) ordered Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 (50% of the applicable ceiling) within 10 days in the appeal against the Milan Local Division's infringement judgment concerning EP 2 145 848. The court rejected Oerlikon's request for security regarding first-instance costs already awarded (as those are a matter of enforcement). Security was justified by Bhagat's financial difficulties, the non-enforceability of UPC orders in India, and Bhagat's explicit acknowledgment that it cannot pay the first-instance costs.
2025-10-30UPC_CoA_8/2025Court of AppealApplication For CostsCostsCosts onlyItalian-language version of the Court of Appeal order (Panel 1b) ordering Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 in the appeal concerning EP 2 145 848. Identical substance to the English version: security ordered based on Bhagat's financial difficulties and non-enforceability of UPC orders in India. Request for security covering first-instance costs rejected.
2025-10-17UPC_CFI_404/2025Munich LDGeneric OrderCostsCosts onlyThe Munich Local Division issued a costs decision in favour of Edwards Lifesciences against Meril, ruling on the reasonableness and proportionality of claimed costs including travel expenses and multiple representatives, and awarding costs in proceedings of above-average complexity.
2025-10-01UPC_CFI_712/2025Dusseldorf LDApplication RoP262AProceduralProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division (judge-rapporteur Dr. Schumacher) issued a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP in the infringement proceedings brought by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities concerning EP 1 962 668 B1 (glucose sensor).
2025-09-02UPC_APP_35269/2025Nordic-Baltic RDGeneric applicationCostsProcedural onlyOrder 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.
2025-07-21UPC_CFI_380/2023Nordic-Baltic RDInfringement ActionoutcomeName.otherDecision of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division dated 21 July 2025 (anonymised) in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's infringement action against Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited and related entities regarding EP 3 769 722 (heart valve delivery system). The decision covers the infringement action and multiple counterclaims for revocation filed by Meril entities, as well as applications to amend the patent. The oral hearing was held on 16 January 2025, with further pleadings submitted after the hearing regarding parallel EPO opposition proceedings. The operative part of the decision is not included in the available excerpt; however given the case involves both infringement claims and revocation counterclaims with patent amendment applications, a substantive ruling on both infringement and validity is expected.
2025-06-05UPC_APP_24411/2025Court of AppealApplication Rop 365ProceduralSettledThe Court of Appeal confirmed a settlement agreement between Tandem Diabetes and Roche Diabetes, terminating the appeal proceedings. The settlement arose after the Central Division Paris had dismissed the revocation action and maintained EP 2 196 231 as granted.
2025-06-03UPC_APP_21220/2025Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyMunich Local Division procedural order on Meril's applications (R. 353 RoP) for rectification of a decision of 4 April 2025 in infringement proceedings concerning a prosthetic heart valve patent (EP 3 669 828) between Edwards Lifesciences and Meril. Meril sought corrections to factual statements about which claims were alleged to be infringed (independent claims 1 and 12 vs. only claim 1 as independent). The order addresses the scope of rectification available under R. 353 RoP.
2025-04-09UPC_APP_60159/2024Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order dealing with Meril's applications for cost reimbursement and confidentiality protection (R. 262A RoP) in the Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril proceedings. Following the judge-rapporteur's guidance, Meril withdrew the cost reimbursement applications. The order addressed the scope of confidentiality protection for legal fee invoices and related documents.
2025-04-09UPC_APP_59832/2024Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural 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.
2025-04-04UPC_CFI_501/2023Munich LDInfringement ActionInfringedInfringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, and Meril Italy S.r.l. concerning transcatheter heart valve (Myval THV) and EP 3 669 828. The court found infringement, dismissed the invalidity counterclaim (patent valid), and ordered: injunction, recall, seizure and destruction, disclosure of sales data, provisional damages of EUR 663,000, publication of decision in five media outlets. Decision immediately and directly enforceable from date of service. Key headnotes: jurisdiction for multiple defendants with commercial relationship; problem-solution approach for inventive step; cease-and-desist without penalty clause insufficient.
2025-02-17UPC_APP_66551/2024Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division rejected Meril's application for rectification of an infringement decision (ORD_598479/2023) under R. 353 RoP, finding that the alleged inaccuracies in the statement of facts did not constitute clerical errors or obvious slips warranting correction.
2025-01-21UPC_APP_33375/2024Nordic-Baltic RDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralDismissedNordic-Baltic Regional Division judge-rapporteur closed proceedings following withdrawal of seven public access applications (R. 262.1(b) RoP) by the applicant (an individual acting also on behalf of SWAT Medical AB) in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril et al. proceedings. Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited's request for cost reimbursement (EUR 17,168.70) was rejected: Art. 69 UPCA does not apply to proceedings on public access requests because (i) the Enforcement Directive's cost principle does not extend to such requests, (ii) no ceiling for recoverable costs has been set for access proceedings, and (iii) parties to the main proceedings are merely consulted, not 'parties' in the access sub-proceedings.
2024-12-11ORD_65290/2024Nordic-Baltic RDGeneric OrderProceduralProcedural onlyNordic-Baltic Regional Division (full panel) order dismissing defendants' request to stay the main infringement proceedings pending EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3 769 722. The Court of Appeal had previously set aside an earlier stay dismissal and referred back for reconsideration under R. 295(a) RoP. On reconsideration, the panel dismissed the stay request again in the Meril/Edwards heart valve case (Edward Lifesciences v Meril entities). The request to stay pending Central Division revocation counterclaim was also refused.
2024-12-10ACT_582093/2023Nordic-Baltic RDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe Nordic-Baltic Regional Division issued a post-interim conference procedural order in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v Meril Life Sciences and others (UPC_CFI_380/2023, EP 3 769 722 — a transcatheter heart valve patent). The order resolved multiple procedural disputes including: admissibility of additional invalidity attacks raised in the counterclaim for revocation; how to deal with the public interest defence; request for a CJEU preliminary reference (deferred); request for a Court expert (rejected); and practical arrangements for the oral hearing.
2024-11-15UPC_APP_57746/2024Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_15/2023) rejecting Meril's application to request information from the European Commission regarding antitrust investigations into Edwards Lifesciences' patent filing and litigation strategy. The Court declined to exercise its discretion to seek such information and denied Meril's request to reopen the oral procedure.
2024-11-15UPC_APP_56354/2024Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order from Munich Local Division (full panel) in the infringement proceedings of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. concerning EP 3 646 825. Defendants requested the court to ask the European Commission for information about antitrust investigations against Edwards. The panel declined the request at this stage as premature and disproportionate, noting that the merits (infringement and validity) would be assessed at the oral hearing first.
2024-11-15UPC_APP_60393/2024Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in the infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (UPC_CFI_15/2023, EP 3 646 825). The defendants' applications to request information from the European Commission about antitrust investigations involving Edwards were denied. The Court declined to approach the European Commission as this was neither ordered by the Court of its own motion nor within the procedural framework for the specific oral hearing.
2024-10-14UPC_APP_33486/2024Paris CDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralProcedural onlyThe Paris Central Division ruled on applications for public access to pleadings and evidence filed by SWAT Medical AB (KIPA AB) in relation to revocation and counterclaim proceedings between Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences concerning EP 3 646 825.
2024-10-04UPC_CoA_2/2024Court of AppealAppeal RoP220.2motionName.appeal_decisionCosts onlyOrder from the Court of Appeal dated 4 October 2024 on costs following Meril's submission of an undertaking (Unterlassungs- und Verpflichtungserklärung) to Edwards Lifesciences, which resulted in dismissal of the preliminary injunction action. The CoA held that, where a defendant undertakes to comply with the claimant's requests after proceedings have commenced, the claimant is generally to be regarded as the prevailing party under Art. 69(1) UPCA, without any need to examine the merits at the time of the undertaking. The undertaking itself implies that the claimant's requests were satisfied. Accordingly, Meril was ordered to bear the costs of proceedings.
2024-10-04UPC_CoA_2/2024Court of AppealAppeal RoP220.2motionName.appeal_decisionCosts onlyThe Court of Appeal dismissed Meril's appeal against the Munich Local Division's costs order following a cease-and-desist undertaking by Meril. The Court held that Edwards was the successful party because Meril's cease-and-desist undertaking fulfilled the substance of Edwards' requests after proceedings commenced. Where a defendant gives a cease-and-desist undertaking during proceedings, the claimant is generally the successful party for costs purposes, and there is no need to examine admissibility and merits at the time of the undertaking.
2024-08-20UPC_APP_14299/2024Nordic-Baltic RDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyOrder by Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (UPC_CFI_380/2023, 20 August 2024) dismissing Meril defendants' application to stay infringement proceedings pending EPO opposition on EP 3 769 722 (transcatheter heart valve). The court clarified that R. 295(a) RoP and Art. 33(10) UPCA allow a discretionary stay during written procedure only if a rapid EPO decision is expected; R. 118.2(b) RoP applies only in the oral procedure phase.
2024-08-20UPC_APP_14061/2024Nordic-Baltic RDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (UPC_CFI_380/2023) dismissing Meril entities' application for security for costs against Edwards Lifesciences in an infringement action concerning EP 3 769 722. The Court held that the mere fact that the claimant is located in the United States does not justify ordering security for costs, as this would constitute an unjustified restriction of the right to an effective remedy; the risk of unenforceability in the US was deemed insufficient.
2024-07-29UPC_CFI_501/2023Munich LDInfringement ActionProcedural onlyMunich Local Division issued a case management order fixing dates for the interim conference and oral hearing in this infringement action concerning heart valve technology, balancing the claimant's right to a hearing within one year of service with defendants' representative availability constraints.
2024-07-19ACT_551308/2023Paris CDRevocation ActionRevocation meritsPatent amendedThe Paris Central Division rejected the revocation actions filed by Meril Italy Srl and Meril GmbH/Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against EP 3 646 825, maintaining the patent in amended form as per auxiliary request II submitted during the proceedings; costs were split 60% (claimants/counterclaimants) and 40% (defendant).
2024-07-19CC_585030/2023Paris CDCounterclaim for revocationRevocation meritsPatent amendedDecision of the Paris Central Division rejecting the revocation action by Meril Italy Srl and the counterclaims for revocation by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's EP 3 646 825 (prosthetic heart valve). The patent is maintained as amended in auxiliary request II, which limits claims to a frame made up entirely of hexagonal cells. The revocation claimants (60%) and defendant (40%) share costs.
2024-07-19CC_584916/2023Paris CDCounterclaim for revocationRevocation meritsPatent amendedThe Central Division (Paris) maintained Edwards Lifesciences' EP 3 646 825 (prosthetic heart valve) in amended form (Auxiliary Request II) following revocation actions and counterclaims by Meril entities. All invalidity grounds against the amended claims were rejected.
2024-04-30UPC_APP_19959/2024Paris CDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Paris Central Division exercised its discretion to admit Edwards Lifesciences' subsequent request to amend patent EP 3 646 825 after the written procedure had closed, provided that Meril Italy was granted additional time to submit a defence to the new amendment, holding that such admission does not prejudice the opposing party's right of defence.
2024-04-08UPC_APP_16619/2024Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyOrder from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_501/2023) rejecting Meril's request for a three-week extension to file its Statement of Defence following a language change from German to English. The Court held that a language change agreed to shortly before the deadline does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an extension, consistent with the UPC's principle that extensions should be granted only in exceptional cases.
2024-03-05UPC_APP_7662/2024Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division denied Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's request to convert a scheduled video-conference intermediate hearing to an in-person hearing, and also denied the court-ordered simultaneous interpretation from German into English, ruling that the claimant had voluntarily chosen German as the language of proceedings and could arrange interpretation at its own expense under R. 109.2 RoP.
2024-02-15UPC_CoA_2/2024Court of AppealGeneric OrderCostsProcedural onlyProcedural order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_2/2024) on the appeal fee issue in provisional measures proceedings. The appeal concerned a Munich Local Division order declaring the PI application moot after Meril gave an undertaking and cease and desist declaration. The order addressed cost allocation and whether the appeal fee was properly calculated.
2024-02-15UPC_CoA_2/2024Court of AppealGeneric OrderCostsCosts onlyProcedural order of the Court of Appeal addressing the appeal fee in an appeal by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences against a Munich Local Division order in provisional measures proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding EP 3 763 331 (crimping device for heart valve prostheses). After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist undertaking, Edwards accepted it and the case was resolved without a ruling. The first-instance court ordered Meril to bear costs up to EUR 200,000 and set the action value at EUR 1,500,000. Meril appealed. The Court of Appeal order concerned procedural aspects of the appeal fee payment.
2023-11-13UPC_CFI_255/2023Paris CDPreliminary objectionmotionName.jurisdictionalProcedural onlyThe Paris Central Division issued an order on a preliminary objection filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation challenging the competence of the Central Division to hear a revocation action by Meril Italy srl concerning EP 3 646 825, raising issues of same parties and Article 33(2) UPCA.
2023-09-29UPC_CFI_15/2023Munich LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe 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.
2023-08-23UPC_CFI_15/2023Munich LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe 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.
2023-08-10UPC_CFI_15/2023Munich LDInfringement ActionProceduralProcedural onlyThe 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.