| 2026-02-13 | UPC_CFI_770/2024 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in Pirelli v. Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber, resolving preliminary objections (with SYR withdrawing a service objection) and addressing admissibility of photographs and product samples from the earlier seizure. |
| 2026-01-13 | UPC_CFI_628/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Not infringed | Final decision on the merits in infringement action by Emboline, Inc. against AorticLab srl (EP 2 129 425, medical device). Court dismissed the infringement action finding the patent not infringed. The defendant's counterclaim for revocation was conditional (dependent on a finding of infringement), and since no infringement was found, no decision was made on the counterclaim. Both parties bear their own costs. Key headnotes: infringement not excluded by normal non-infringing operation if patent-compliant use remains possible; irregular use of a medical device in line with professional practice can constitute infringement; conditional counterclaim limited in scope (Rule 263.3 RoP). |
| 2025-12-23 | UPC_CoA_691/2025 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted the joint withdrawal of Lindal Dispenser GmbH's appeal against the Paris Central Division decision maintaining EP 3 655 346 as amended (revocation action UPC_CFI_202/2024). The proceedings were declared closed by consent. No cost order was made (both parties agreed). 60% of the appeal court fees were reimbursed to Lindal under R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP as the withdrawal was filed before the Statement of Response. |
| 2025-12-18 | UPC_CFI_716/2024 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Mannheim Local Division found that Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA infringed Polidoro's premixed burner patent EP 2 037 175 and granted an injunction, recall/removal, destruction, information order, interim damages, and publication of the decision. |
| 2025-11-25 | UPC_CoA_464/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Patent maintained | The Court of Appeal dismissed the Meril companies' appeals against the revocation and counterclaim revocation decisions and Edwards' appeal against the infringement decision, upholding the patent EP 3 646 825 (heart valve). Key rulings: (I–VIII) All revocation and counterclaim appeals rejected; Meril bears 60% of Edwards' costs in the revocation proceedings and Edwards bears 40% of Meril's costs. (IX–X) The infringement decision was partially set aside: the injunction and preliminary damages order do not extend to XL devices (30.5mm and 32mm) that had not been scheduled for implantation in a patient by 15 November 2024. Preliminary damages reduced to not exceed €363,000 for Meril India and Meril Germany. The value of the proceedings is €8,000,000. |
| 2025-11-07 | UPC_CoA_900/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur) rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favour of Occlutech. The CoA held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. Lepu's claim that enforcing the injunction would damage its reputation was insufficient to outweigh Occlutech's interest in preventing imminent patent infringement. |
| 2025-10-20 | UPC_CFI_189/2024 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent amended | 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). |
| 2025-07-21 | UPC_CFI_8/2023 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application Rop 365 | — | Settled | The court confirmed a settlement agreement between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the Meril defendants (Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, SMIS International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB) in the infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation concerning EP 2 628 464. Both the infringement action and counterclaims for revocation were settled and confirmed by decision. The court also ordered partial reimbursement of court fees. |
| 2025-06-26 | APL_36389/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (26 June 2025) rejected Ballinno's appeal against (1) the security for costs order of EUR 56,000, and (2) the CFI's cost order. As Ballinno had withdrawn its requests for provisional measures on appeal, the action was declared devoid of purpose and disposed of under R. 360 RoP. Ballinno was ordered to bear the Kinexon companies' and UEFA's legal costs for the appeal proceedings. Value of dispute set at EUR 100,000. |
| 2025-05-08 | UPC_CFI_716/2024 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order granting Claimant Polidoro S.p.a. a one-week extension to 19 May 2025 for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. Extension justified because access to the unredacted version of the Statement of Defence was delayed under Rule 262A RoP. |
| 2025-04-18 | UPC_APP_9095/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 223 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal refused Meril's application for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Munich Local Division's infringement decision in favour of Edwards Lifesciences, meaning the first-instance judgment remained enforceable pending appeal. |
| 2025-01-10 | UPC_APP_3187/2024 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Costs only | The Munich Local Division ruled on the costs assessment in the Edwards v Meril preliminary injunction proceedings, holding that recoverable costs and disbursements assessed in a costs determination are not subject to interest. |
| 2025-01-08 | UPC_CFI_189/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Costs only | 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. |
| 2024-10-08 | UPC_APP_52773/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Paris Central Division (judge-rapporteur) denied Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's application for a time extension to file its rejoinder in proceedings UPC_CFI_189/2024, holding that the principle of procedural efficiency must yield to the fair trial principle only where the extension would not disadvantage the party who had already complied with the shorter ordinary deadline. Since the respondents (Meril) had already met the ordinary deadline, granting Edwards an extension would be unfair. |
| 2024-09-23 | UPC_APP_33484/2024 | Paris CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Central Division (Seat) ruled on a third-party access application (R. 262.1(b) RoP) by KIPA AB (an anonymised applicant) seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in the revocation action between Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning EP 4 151 181. The court assessed the applicant's interest as a competitor investor in cardiac implant technology. |
| 2024-09-18 | UPC_APP_33494/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (full panel) on the same anonymized applicant's third parallel request for access to pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in the Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril proceedings (EP 2 628 464). Filed as App_33494/2024, this order applies the same legal principles on public access as the companion orders in App_33316/2024 and App_33493/2024, with substantially identical headnotes and analysis. |
| 2024-09-18 | UPC_APP_33493/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (full panel) on the same anonymized applicant's request for access to pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in the Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril proceedings (EP 2 628 464). This is a parallel order filed in the counterclaim proceedings under App. 33493/2024, applying the same legal principles as App_33316/2024. The headnotes and legal analysis concerning public access under Art. 45 UPCA are substantially identical to the order in App_33316/2024. |
| 2024-09-18 | UPC_APP_33316/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (full panel) on an anonymized applicant's request for access to pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in the Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril infringement proceedings (EP 2 628 464). The court set out important headnotes on public access: Art. 45 UPCA establishes a principle of openness of UPC proceedings including written procedure, and if an applicant has provided a credible explanation for seeking access, the application should be approved unless confidentiality is necessary. The court addressed whether the applicant's stated interest was sufficient to justify granting access. |
| 2024-09-17 | UPC_CFI_189/2024 | Paris CD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | 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. |
| 2024-08-16 | UPC_APP_43606/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division issued a procedural order setting the timetable for resumption of Edwards Lifesciences' infringement action against Meril entities after a stay pending EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision in T0308/23 concerning EP 2 628 464. |
| 2023-12-19 | UPC_CFI_249/2023 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Costs only | The Munich Local Division issued a costs order following the discontinuation of provisional measures proceedings after the respondents (Meril) provided an undertaking to cease the contested acts. The court found the proceedings had become moot, declared the PI application resolved, and ordered the respondents to bear the applicant's costs up to a ceiling of EUR 200,000, holding that respondents had unnecessarily caused those costs. |
| 2023-08-28 | UPC_CFI_249/2023 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division scheduled an oral hearing for 10 October 2023 in provisional measures proceedings by Edwards Lifesciences against Meril GmbH (EP 3 763 331), setting timelines for responses to objections and arranging simultaneous interpretation. |
| 2023-08-14 | UPC_CFI_249/2023 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division held that successful service on one co-defendant could constitute effective alternative service on another co-defendant under Rule 275.2 RoP in Edwards Lifesciences' infringement action, given CMS malfunction. |