Pending
at Nordic Baltic Regional Division
5 pending decisions from Nordic Baltic Regional Division.
Pending Decisions
5 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
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 3 769 722, the UPC Court of First Instance granted both parties' requests to stay the proceedings. This decision is highly significant as it links the outcome of the UPC litigation directly to the parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Furthermore, the court provisionally established strict confidentiality measures for sensitive documents exchanged between the parties, setting a clear precedent for managing trade secrets within the UPC framework.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
This UPC Order addressed procedural matters in a complex infringement and revocation case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril Life Sciences. The Court confirmed the case value and maintained the scheduled oral hearing date despite concurrent proceedings at the EPO Opposition Division. Crucially, the court ruled to exclude late-filed attacks on inventive step that were not part of the initial claims or defenses, reinforcing principles of procedural fairness in UPC litigation.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This UPC Order sets the stage for an infringement case concerning textile structures (EP2186428). The Court closed the written phase and scheduled a detailed oral hearing in Stockholm. A key procedural victory for the Claimant was the rejection of the Defendant's motions to exclude crucial evidence, affirming that reactive arguments are admissible in litigation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This preliminary UPC decision addressed several procedural motions within an ongoing infringement action concerning diabetes monitoring technology. The Court firmly rejected the Claimant's attempts to expand its claims or shift the burden of proof by requesting information, emphasizing adherence to the front-loaded nature of UPCA proceedings. By dismissing these applications and setting clear deadlines for expert evidence and oral hearings, the court moved the case closer to substantive trial.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addresses the resumption of a complex infringement and revocation action after the UPC proceedings were stayed pending a decision from the EPO Boards of Appeal (TBA). The Court established a tailored timetable, granting the claimant 14 days to file an amended statement of claim and the defendants 42 days to respond with their amended defense and counterclaim for revocation. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines when external decisions significantly alter the scope of the patent-in-suit.
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.