Elisabetta Papa
16 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
16 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Meril entities sought revocation of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 4 151 181 B1, which relates to a radially collapsible and expandable prosthetic heart valve with an outer skirt having axial slack. Edwards counterclaimed for infringement based on Meril's 'Octacor System' and 'Octapro System' products. The court rejected the revocation action, maintained the patent as amended by Auxiliary Request 2, and found infringement, granting an injunction (with an exception for XL-size valves exceeding 30 mm in diameter) along with information, delivery, and penalty payment orders.
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.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 concerning a method and system for detecting offside situations, applied for provisional measures against Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division. The Local Division ordered Ballinno to provide security for costs of €56,000 and subsequently dismissed the application for provisional measures. On appeal, Ballinno withdrew its requests for provisional measures, rendering the action devoid of purpose, and the Court of Appeal rejected Ballinno's challenge to the security order, ordered Ballinno to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and set the value of the dispute for appeal at €100,000.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of EP 1 944 067 relating to a method and system for detecting offside situations, sought provisional measures against Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division in connection with the Connected Ball Technology used at UEFA EURO 2024. After the Local Division dismissed its application for lack of urgency and insufficient proof of infringement, and ordered Ballinno to provide security for costs, Ballinno appealed but withdrew its request for a provisional injunction because the tournament had already taken place. The Court of Appeal held the appeal on security for costs admissible and set out principles for costs allocation, indicating that a party who builds its case on a single event and withdraws after the event passes must generally bear the costs as the unsuccessful party.
Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Meril's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division finding infringement of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve and delivery catheter system). The Court held that Meril failed to demonstrate that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous or that an exception to the general rule under Article 74(1) UPCA (that appeals do not have suspensive effect) was warranted. Meril's alternative request for a stay of enforcement subject to the provision of security was also rejected.
Meril Italy srl, Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB
The applicants sought reimbursement of EUR 15,000 in costs incurred in proceedings concerning the respondent's application for access to written pleadings and evidence, which had been rejected. The Court of First Instance dismissed the cost application, holding that a request for access to the register does not constitute litigation in a technical sense and therefore cannot give rise to a decision on the merits, which is a prerequisite for a cost decision under Rule 150 RoP.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This order concerns procedural applications filed in revocation proceedings related to European patent No. 4 151 181 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sought a 9-day extension of the deadline for lodging its rejoinder to align it with another deadline, but the respondents (Meril entities) opposed the request. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, holding that procedural efficiency must yield to the principle of fair trial, as granting the extension would create an imbalance since the claimants had already complied with the shorter, standard deadline.
SWAT Medical AB and Erik Krahbichler v.Meril Italy srl, Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The applicants, SWAT Medical AB and its board member Erik Krahbichler, sought access under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure to all written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 4 151 181 between the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The presiding judge-rapporteur rejected the application, holding that operating in the same field as the patent was insufficient to establish a specific interest and that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicants' general interest in information.
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.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This order concerns procedural applications filed in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 4 151 181. The applicants (Meril entities) sought to have the respondent's (Edwards Lifesciences) counterclaim for infringement declared inadmissible as it was filed after the two-month deadline under Rule 49 of the Rules of Procedure. The judge-rapporteur rejected the application and retrospectively extended the deadline to 23 July 2024 under Rule 9(3)(a) RoP, finding that technical issues with the CMS constituted exceptional circumstances beyond the respondent's reasonable control.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, and Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by Kinexon companies and UEFA for security for costs in appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. The court ruled that R.158 RoP and R.222.2 RoP are applicable to the Court of Appeal, and ordered Ballinno to provide security of €25,000 within two weeks, finding that Ballinno's financial situation raised legitimate concerns about the recoverability of any cost order.
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.
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.