Nordic Baltic Regional Division
20 cases · page 1 of 1
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, MERIL GMBH, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB
This is an order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning three related cases (UPC_CFI_775/2025, UPC_CFI_776/2025, and UPC_CFI_777/2025) involving patent EP 3 769 722 B1. Following a merits decision on 21 July 2025 in case CFI 380/2023, the parties jointly requested a stay of the cost proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal (case T-241/25-3.2.02). The Court granted the stay and also provisionally granted the parties' confidentiality requests regarding certain cost application documents.
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED v.Respondent
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 769 722, where Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued several Meril entities for patent infringement, and the Defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Court of first instance found the patent invalid as granted but upheld it as amended, and found infringement of the amended patent, ordering the Defendants to bear the costs of the infringement proceedings and 75% of Edwards' costs in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The Defendants sought rectification of the costs order, arguing the Court should have expressly ordered Edwards to bear 25% of the Defendants' costs in the counterclaim proceedings. The Court dismissed the rectification requests, holding that the chosen cost allocation was a valid and equitable distribution under Article 69 UPCA and the Rules of Procedure.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This is an infringement action before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 186 428 B2, titled 'Tissue design for protective clothing,' which relates to a fabric structure for protective clothing for emergency forces. TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH, an Austrian manufacturer of firefighting clothing and exclusive licensee of the patent, alleged that Sioen NV, a Belgian company, infringed the patent in Latvia through its '868 – Twin/AS' product and in Portugal through its 'NOMEX SIOEN modelo RSB LX' product. The Court found infringement and granted TEXPORT's claims for a declaration of infringement, injunction, damages, information, recall, destruction, and legal costs, while dismissing all other requests.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation brought an infringement action against Meril Life Sciences and related entities concerning European Patent 3 769 722, which relates to a low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valves. The defendants denied infringement and filed counterclaims for revocation, along with conditional applications to amend the patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) found the patent valid as amended, held that the defendants infringed claim 1, and ordered injunctive relief, corrective measures, provisional damages of EUR 500,000, and cost awards in favor of Edwards.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against Meril Lifesciences and related entities concerning European Patent EP 2 628 464 B1 relating to the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis Myval™ THV. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and proceedings were stayed pending the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal decision, which upheld the patent in amended form. The parties subsequently reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm the settlement agreement by decision, along with partial reimbursement of court fees.
Stanley Black & Decker Inc. , Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3953541, owned by Viking Arm AS, which initiated an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the same patent. The parties subsequently reached a mutual agreement to discontinue the proceedings, with Viking Arm withdrawing the infringement action and Stanley withdrawing the counterclaim for revocation.
Fapa Vital AG v.Respondent
Fapa Vital AG filed an application for provisional measures against Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP 1 978 949 before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement, the Applicant withdrew the application and requested reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees. The Court declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of EUR 6,600 (60% of the EUR 11,000 total Court fees), applying Rule 370.9(b) RoP by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures.
Footbridge Group AB , Brunngård Group AB v.Imbox Protection A/S
Imbox Protection A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 276 862, filed an application to preserve evidence and inspect property against Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB regarding their EXPRO HUB product. After the Defendants submitted detailed objections demonstrating non-infringement, the Applicant withdrew the application. The Court granted the Defendants' requests for confidentiality protection over Exhibits 17-19 and awarded each Defendant SEK 225,000 in legal costs and expenses, applying a joint ceiling of EUR 38,000 for representation costs.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
An unnamed member of the public, represented by Erik Krahbichler, applied for access to all written pleadings and evidence in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_380/2023) between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril et al. concerning EP 3 769 722. After the parties objected and Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited requested reimbursement of EUR 17,168.70 in legal costs, the Applicant withdrew the applications. The judge-rapporteur closed the proceedings on the access applications and dismissed the requests for reimbursement of legal costs, holding that Article 69 UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering a member of the public to reimburse costs incurred by parties consulted under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent No. EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims and requested the Court to declare the proceedings closed without a cost decision. The Court applied Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure and, finding no legitimate interest in adjudication, permitted the withdrawals and closed the proceedings.
VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, MERIL GMBH, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, INTERLUX, UAB, SORMEDICA, UAB v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against several Meril entities and related companies regarding EP3769722. The Defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the European Patent Office Opposition Division's decision on the patent's validity. After the Court of Appeal set aside an earlier order dismissing the stay request, the Court of First Instance again dismissed the stay request and decided to proceed with the oral hearing as planned on 16 January 2025.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3769722. The order addresses multiple case management issues raised during an interim conference, including the value of the case, scheduling relative to parallel EPO opposition proceedings, admissibility of late-filed attacks on inventive step, and various other procedural requests. The Court set the total case value at 6,000,000 EUR, declined to reschedule the oral hearing, excluded certain late-filed inventive step attacks, and ruled on the admissibility of auxiliary requests, equivalence arguments, and expert-related requests.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Sioen NV (SIOEN) in infringement proceedings brought by TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH (TEXPORT) before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP2186428, relating to tissue construction for protective clothing. SIOEN sought dismissal or stay of the UPC proceedings on the basis of parallel proceedings it had initiated before a Belgian national court, arguing that the Belgian court was first seised. The Court dismissed SIOEN's requests, finding that the parties in the parallel proceedings were not the same and that the conditions for staying or declining jurisdiction under Articles 29, 30, and 31 of the Brussels I recast Regulation were not met.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This is a preliminary order in an infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP3977921 B1. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and both parties submitted various procedural applications including requests for communication of information, leave to change claims, dismissal of certain revocation grounds, and security for legal costs. The Court addressed procedural deadlines for further written submissions and preparation of the oral hearing, discussed the allocation of a technically qualified judge, and considered the claimant's application for leave to amend its prayer for relief.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an unnamed applicant's request under Rule 262.1(b) for access to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation as claimant and Meril Lifesciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB as defendants, relating to European Patent EP2628464. The applicant claimed to be a board member and investor in a medical device company in the cardiac implant technology field, seeking access as a competitor concerned about the patent's validity. Edwards Lifesciences opposed the request, arguing it lacked a concrete, verifiable, and legitimate reason, and referenced prior decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi-Aventis and Ocado v. AutoStore. The order addresses the principles of public access under Article 45 UPCA and the requirements for granting access under Rule 262.1(b).
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, INTERLUX, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action regarding EP3769722. The Defendants (Meril entities and others) requested a stay of proceedings pending an EPO opposition decision, while the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) opposed the stay. The Court dismissed the request, holding that Rule 118.2(b) RoP applies only during oral procedure, a rapid EPO decision could not be expected, and the UPC could itself decide validity given the pending counterclaims for revocation.
SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, SORMEDICA, UAB, MERIL GMBH, INTERLUX, UAB v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the Defendants (Meril Life Sciences and related entities) for the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) to provide security for legal costs in an infringement action concerning EP3769722. The Defendants argued that security was warranted because the Claimant is based in the United States, outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order potentially difficult. The court dismissed the application, holding that the Claimant's location outside the EU and the lack of experience enforcing UPC orders in the US are not sufficient grounds for ordering security, and that the balance of interests favored the Claimant.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
1 Nordic-Baltic - regional division UPC_CFI_8/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/08/2024 APPLICANT/CLAMIMANT 1) Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Applicant) - One Edwards Way - 92614 - Irvine, California - US Represented b
OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v.AUTOSTORE AS
In this legal proceeding before Nordic Baltic Regional Division (decision issued on 2023-10-17) under reference UPC-001692, OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED appeared in dispute with AUTOSTORE AS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v.AUTOSTORE AS
In this legal proceeding before Nordic Baltic Regional Division (decision issued on 2023-09-08) under reference UPC-001712, OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED appeared in dispute with AUTOSTORE AS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.