Stefan Wilhelm
16 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
16 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict procedural requirements governing ex parte orders for evidence preservation. Ecovacs sought an inspection order against Roborock, but the Local Division revoked it due to incomplete disclosure by Ecovacs regarding Roborock's direct market activities. The Court of Appeal upheld this revocation, stressing that applicants have a heightened duty under R. 192.3 RoP to disclose all material facts influencing the court’s decision, regardless of whether those facts are later introduced in the main action.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This UPC decision addressed a request for rectification concerning the allocation of legal costs following a complex merits judgment. The Claimant, Edwards Lifesciences, had achieved partial success—upholding the patent as amended while finding infringement and invalidity. The Defendants argued that the original cost order was incomplete, failing to allocate 25% of their own costs. The Court firmly rejected this argument, confirming that the initial decision provided a fair and equitable distribution of costs under Article 69 UPCA.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
Edwards Lifesciences successfully sued Meril Life Sciences and associated entities for infringing its patent EP 3 769 722, which covers a low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valves (TAVI). The UPC Court of First Instance found that the defendants' products literally infringe the patented technology. This decision is significant as it reinforces the enforceability of specialized medical device patents within the unified patent court framework, particularly in complex TAVI applications.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes Care appealed a decision from the Central Division Paris regarding the revocation of EP 2 196 231, which covered an ambulatory drug infusion system. Before the Court of Appeal could rule on the appeal, both parties reached a settlement agreement. The UPC Court of Appeal subsequently confirmed this settlement, formally terminating all proceedings related to the patent.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This order addresses a procedural dispute regarding the costs associated with public access requests to court documents within UPC proceedings. The judge-rapporteur clarified that Article 69 UPCA, which governs cost allocation, is not applicable when parties are consulted by the judge-rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. This ruling sets a clear boundary on who can seek reimbursement of legal costs in these specific procedural contexts, emphasizing that public access requests do not automatically trigger standard cost recovery mechanisms.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by multiple defendants to stay infringement proceedings pending decisions from the EPO Opposition Division. Despite an accelerated opposition hearing being scheduled at the EPO, the Court ruled against rescheduling its own oral hearing. The decision emphasizes the need for the UPC to maintain its timeline while acknowledging the parallel proceedings, setting the stage for the main merits hearing.
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.
SWAT Medical AB v.Meril Italy S.r.l.
This UPC decision addressed an application for public access to court records in ongoing revocation proceedings concerning a medical device patent. The applicant, SWAT Medical AB, sought access as a competitor interested in the validity of the patented technology. The Court ruled that the general principle of transparency applies, granting access to all pleadings and evidence. However, it also granted leave to appeal and suspended the order's effect, setting up potential future legal challenges regarding the scope of public disclosure.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH / Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision focused solely on the allocation of legal costs following an initial case where the defendant submitted a declaration of cessation and undertaking. The court affirmed that while such declarations often favor the claimant, Meril was ultimately held liable for the appeal costs due to its procedural conduct in the first instance. This ruling reinforces the principle that cost allocation under Art. 69 EPGÜ considers not only the final outcome but also the degree of success or failure throughout the proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
In this procedural order, the UPC dismissed a request by multiple defendants for security for legal costs against the US-based claimant. The Court emphasized that while protecting defendants is important, it cannot unduly restrict a claimant's right to an effective remedy. The ruling clarified that the mere fact of being non-EU based is insufficient grounds for imposing security if the claimant demonstrates financial capacity and willingness to cover adverse costs.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by the Defendants to stay infringement proceedings pending the outcome of an opposition filed at the EPO. The Court rejected the application, emphasizing that the primary legal basis for such a stay requires the expectation of a rapid final decision from the EPO. Given the likelihood of appeals following the opposition, the court determined that the condition for staying the case was not met, allowing the infringement action to proceed.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a significant UPC decision, the Central Division rejected revocation actions against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning its prosthetic heart valve patent (EP '825). The claimants argued for invalidity based on lack of novelty and inventive step. However, the Court maintained the patent's validity after accepting an amendment submitted by the defendant, underscoring the importance of procedural compliance in UPC litigation.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a complex revocation action, the UPC Central Division rejected Meril Italy Srl's attempt to invalidate EP 3 646 825. The patent relates to an advanced prosthetic heart valve with a unique hexagonal cell frame design. Despite multiple procedural maneuvers and consolidation of related counterclaims, the Court upheld the patent's validity after incorporating amendments. This case underscores the UPC's jurisdiction over complex medical device patents and its strict approach to maintaining patent rights unless clear invalidity grounds are established.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a significant decision concerning medical device patents, the UPC Central Division rejected revocation actions against EP '825. The patent relates to an advanced prosthetic heart valve with a unique hexagonal cell frame structure designed to prevent leakage. Although Meril Italy Srl initiated the action based on novelty and inventive step arguments, the Court ultimately maintained the patent's validity after considering amendments submitted by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. This case highlights how procedural conduct, specifically the submission of limitations during proceedings, can determine the outcome of a revocation suit.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825, the UPC Central Division addressed a complex procedural issue regarding subsequent patent amendments. The Court ruled that while it possesses discretionary power to admit these late requests, this must be done fairly and without prejudicing the opposing party's right of defence. This decision highlights the delicate balance between allowing patentees to refine their claims and ensuring due process in UPC litigation.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
In this interim conference regarding the revocation action against EP 3 414 708, the UPC Central Division addressed several critical procedural issues. The court strictly enforced the principle against late-filed attacks, excluding novelty arguments that were not part of the initial statement for revocation. However, it allowed sufficiency challenges targeting the amended patent to proceed. This decision highlights the UPC's commitment to maintaining a structured and front-loaded litigation process.
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.