Litigation
at Nordic Baltic Regional Division
27 litigation decisions from Nordic Baltic Regional Division.
Litigation Decisions
27 cases | Page 1 of 1
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others
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.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others
This order concerns a request for rectification of a decision on costs issued on 21 July 2025 in proceedings involving patent EP 3 769 722. The Defendants sought rectification, arguing that the Court had omitted to expressly order the Claimant to bear 25% of the Defendants' costs in the counterclaim for revocation proceedings. The Court dismissed the requests, holding that the original cost allocation (Defendants to reimburse 100% of the Claimant's costs in the infringement action and 75% in the counterclaim for revocation, without deduction for any share of the Defendants' costs) was a permissible and equitable distribution under Article 69 UPCA and did not constitute an obvious slip.
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 Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, SMIS International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against Meril entities and related companies concerning European Patent EP 2 628 464 B1, which relates to the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis Myval™ THV. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, and the proceedings were stayed pending the Technical Boards of Appeal decision, which upheld the patent in amended form (EP 464 B2). The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement, which the Court confirmed by decision, ordering partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides and keeping certain terms of the agreement confidential.
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.
Viking Arm AS v.Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Inc., and Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH
Viking Arm AS filed an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities concerning European Patent EP3953541, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently agreed to withdraw their respective actions, and the court declared the proceedings closed without issuing a costs decision.
Fapa Vital AG v.Valentis Baltic UAB
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.
Imbox Protection A/S v.Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB
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.
Unnamed Applicant (Member of the Public) v.Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited (UPC_CFI_380/2023)
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.Dexcom Inc. & Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims and requested the court to close the proceedings without a costs decision. Applying Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure, the court declared the proceedings closed.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently applied to withdraw their respective claims, with each consenting to the other's withdrawal. The Court of First Instance declared the proceedings closed without issuing a cost decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently applied to withdraw their respective claims, with each consenting to the other's withdrawal. The Court of First Instance declared the proceedings closed without issuing a cost decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others
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, Meril GmbH, SMIS International OÜ, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB, VAB-Logistik 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
Order
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. and Dexcom International Limited
Preliminary order of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) in an infringement action concerning EP patent 3 977 921 B1, relating to diabetes monitoring technology. The court dismissed Abbott's application to amend its prayer for relief, dismissed its application for an order to communicate information under Rule 191 RoP, and dismissed the defendants' grounds for revocation based on the Heller document. The court set procedural deadlines and scheduled the oral hearing for 19 December 2024.
KIPA AB - Request for Access to Pleadings and Evidence (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited and Others)
KIPA AB filed a request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to access written pleadings and evidence in proceedings concerning EP 2 628 464 B1, a patent owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation relating to prosthetic heart valves. Both the claimant and defendants opposed the request, arguing it lacked a concrete and legitimate reason and that the applicant's company (SWAT Medical AB) operated in an unrelated field. The Court of First Instance rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's general interest in accessing the materials.
KIPA AB - Request for Access to Pleadings and Evidence (UPC_CFI_8/2023) v.Ex Parte
This procedural order concerns a request by KIPA AB (with co-applicant SWAT Medical AB) for access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (claimant) and Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited and others (defendants) concerning EP 2 628 464. Both the claimant and defendants opposed the request. The Court rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in obtaining access at that stage, while granting leave to appeal.
KIPA AB v.Ex Parte
This procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by KIPA AB (along with co-applicant SWAT Medical AB) for access to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (claimant) and Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited and others (defendants) concerning EP 2 628 464. The applicant sought access as a member of the public and competitor in the cardiac implant technology field. The Court rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in obtaining access at that stage, while granting leave to appeal.
KIPA AB - Request for Access to Pleadings and Evidence (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited et al.)
An applicant (identified as KIPA AB) requested access to all written pleadings and evidence in proceedings concerning EP 2 628 464 B1, a patent owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Both the Claimant and Defendants opposed the request, arguing it lacked specificity and a credible legitimate interest. The Court of First Instance rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in accessing the materials, while granting leave to appeal.
KIPA AB (Application for Access to Pleadings and Evidence in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited et al.)
This procedural order concerns an application by KIPA AB under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in patent infringement proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited et al. concerning EP2628464. Both the Claimant and Defendants opposed the request, arguing it was overly broad and lacked a credible, specific justification. The Court rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's general interest in obtaining access, while granting leave to appeal.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others
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.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited and Others v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
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.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB
This is a procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action and counterclaims for revocation related to European Patent EP 2 628 464. The proceedings had been stayed pending the written decision of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (TBA), which subsequently rejected the appeal as inadmissible and remitted the case to the EPO Opposition Division with an order to maintain the patent in amended form. The court set a timetable for the resumption of proceedings, requiring the claimant to file an amended statement of claim within 14 days and the defendants to file an amended defence and counterclaim for revocation within 42 days.
OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v.AUTOSTORE AS
Unified Patent Court decision.
OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v.AUTOSTORE AS
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.