Executive Summary
Edwards Lifesciences sued Meril entities for infringing its prosthetic heart valve patent (EP 3 669 828 B2). The UPC Local Division Munich issued a comprehensive decision, granting provisional damages of EUR 663,000 and ordering the defendants to cease infringement. Beyond the merits, the court provided important procedural guidance on suing multiple related entities under UPCA rules and applying EPO's problem-solution approach in litigation.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The ruling addressed procedural matters concerning multiple defendants under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA, confirming that joint liability is possible when defendants share a commercial relationship and infringe the same patent. It also provided guidance on applying the problem-solution approach for inventive step assessment to align with EPO jurisprudence.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Munich (DE) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request by Fujifilm Corporation to submit further written observations regarding the private prior use defense raised by Kodak entities. The Court ultimately rejected the request, citing concerns over unnecessary delay and the timing of the submission relative to other proceedings. This decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements within the UPC, emphasizing that requests for additional pleadings must be carefully weighed against the overall efficiency and timeline of the litigation.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonvsASUSTek Computer Inc.
In a complex infringement and revocation action, the UPC Milan Local Division issued a crucial procedural order regarding confidentiality. The court adopted an 'external eyes only' regime for highly sensitive documents, allowing access to unredacted information only by designated external counsel, experts, and specific individuals from each party. This decision provides a clear framework for managing trade secrets while ensuring fair trial rights in high-stakes patent litigation.
RiVOLUTiON GmbHvsCilag GmbH International
This UPC appeal case concerned RiVOLUTiON GmbH's attempt to suspend an injunction issued by the Local Court Munich against it. Rivolution argued that the original decision contained evident legal errors regarding procedural fairness, damages, and enforcement security. The Appeals Chamber ruled that most of these alleged errors could not be assessed without reviewing the detailed grounds of the initial judgment. Consequently, the request for suspension was denied, meaning the injunction remains in effect until further appeal.
Amazon.com, Inc.vsInterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the rules surrounding the use of private transcripts derived from oral hearing recordings. The court ruled that while a full transcript is not automatically provided by the UPC, parties can obtain one with professional assistance if specific conditions are met. These conditions include clearly labeling the document as non-authoritative and ensuring compliance with all confidentiality and data protection mandates.
NJOY Netherlands B.V.vsJuul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application to withdraw an appeal in a patent revocation case involving vaping technology. The court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal after NJOY consented, closing the appellate proceedings. Despite allowing the withdrawal, the court applied standard cost rules, ruling that Juul Labs, as the appellant who withdrew, was ultimately unsuccessful and must cover NJOY's legal costs for the appeal.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.