Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., and Meril Italy S.r.l.

This decision on costs was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 17 October 2025, by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann acting as judge-rapporteur, in cases UPC_CFI_404/2025 (infringement action) and UPC_CFI_405/2025 (counterclaim) concerning European patent n° 3669828.

**Procedural Background:**

On 4 April 2025, the Local Division Munich ordered that the three Meril defendants (Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., and Meril Italy S.r.l.) shall jointly and severally bear the costs of the proceedings. The parties reached an agreement on the amount of costs of representation to be reimbursed, but travel costs remained disputed.

**Edwards' Request:**

In a letter dated 5 May 2025, Edwards sought a cost decision pursuant to Rule 151 RoP, requesting reimbursement of EUR 774,696.49, which included court fees of EUR 63,000.00, travel expenses, EUR 265.77 for materials for physical models, and EUR 43.36 for a publication. The travel expenses covered an interim conference, preparation for the oral hearing, taxi rides to inspect physical models, the oral hearing itself, and travel costs for Pierre-Alain Dumas (Senior Legal Director) from Paris to Munich. This total was below the applicable ceiling of EUR 800,000.00.

**Meril's Objections:**

Meril requested dismissal of the application to the extent Edwards sought reimbursement for travel expenses. Meril argued that: (1) the involvement of a third law firm (Powell Gilbert) was unnecessary given that five representatives from Bird & Bird LLP and Thum & Partner already attended; (2) in-person attendance was unnecessary when video conferencing was available; (3) a two-day trip for certain representatives was disproportionate; (4) Pierre-Alain Dumas was not a UPC representative and his travel costs should not be reimbursable; (5) taxi and Uber costs (approximately EUR 2,300) were not reasonably necessary; (6) meal costs were not reimbursable as the need to eat exists regardless of travel; (7) specific meal expenses, laundry/dry cleaning, and room upgrade charges were not reasonably required or proportionate.

**Edwards' Response:**

In a letter dated 23 June 2025, Edwards stated that EUR 763,309.13 was undisputed and withdrew part of the travel expenses, reducing the claim.

**Court's Analysis:**

The court addressed two parts: (1) the necessity of specific persons' participation in the proceedings, and (2) whether the expenses incurred were necessary and proportionate.

On the first part, the court held that neither the UPCA nor the RoP limits the number of representatives or law firms acting for a party. UPC representatives have a duty to represent their party as effectively as possible and have broad discretion in this respect. If a UPC representative deems it necessary for several representatives to attend oral hearings or preparatory meetings, with each fulfilling a specific task, this must be considered reasonable and proportionate. Similarly, if the UPC representative deems an in-person meeting necessary, it must be deemed necessary, as it is extremely difficult to produce evidence to the contrary.

On the second part, the court noted that the disputed cost represented only a single-digit percentage of the cap on recoverable costs and a slightly higher single-digit percentage of the agreed representation costs. The court held that the extent of the examination of reasonableness must be reasonable itself, and when the value of disputed costs is marginal compared to overall costs, the judge-rapporteur may award them at their discretion. The court also found that using Uber and taxi services generally appears appropriate, as representatives often use journey time to work on their cases.

**Decision:**

The court ordered that the three Meril defendants must pay Edwards' legal costs of EUR 771,649.56 within 20 days. The court noted that the above-average complexity of the proceedings and the total amount to be paid meant that the dispute over the necessity of multiple representatives and their method of involvement was not worthy of detailed consideration when calculating reimbursable travel costs.

**Appeal Information:**

A party adversely affected by the decision may lodge an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal within 15 days of service (R. 221.1 RoP).