Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

This order was issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court on January 10, 2025, in a cost determination proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) related to a preliminary injunction proceeding (ACT_550921/2023, UPC_CFI_249/2023). The applicant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (represented by Bird & Bird), sought cost reimbursement from the respondents, Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (represented by Hogan Lovells), under Rules 150 and 151 of the Rules of Procedure.

The parties had reached out-of-court agreements on the amounts to be reimbursed: EUR 195,000 for first-instance representation costs, EUR 11,000 in court fees for the first instance, and EUR 38,000 for appeal representation costs (the ceiling for reimbursable costs). The total undisputed amount was EUR 244,000.

The sole disputed point was Edwards' request that the determined costs bear interest at five percentage points above the respective base rate under § 247 of the German Civil Code (BGB), accruing from the date of filing of each application. Edwards argued that the reimbursement of interest before the UPC follows from the corresponding application of Rules 125 and 131 RoP. Edwards relied on Article 68(2) UPCA, which requires that the injured party be placed as far as possible in the position it would have been in without the infringement, arguing that without interest, the time value of money expended would be disregarded, causing the patent holder to suffer real losses from foregone interest gains. Edwards also pointed to No. 7 of the Preamble of the Rules of Procedure, which states that cost and/or damages decisions should be made simultaneously with or as soon as possible after the main action, arguing that this demonstrates a comparable interest in prompt cost decisions.

Meril opposed the interest claim, arguing that there is no legal basis for such interest in either the UPCA or the Rules of Procedure. Meril contended that Rules 125 and 131 RoP concern only the determination of damages and compensation, and that the absence of an interest provision in the cost determination rules was deliberate.

The court, presided over by Judge Matthias Zigann, rejected Edwards' interest claim. The court held that there is no legal basis for the reimbursement of interest in cost determination proceedings. Neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure provide for interest on determined costs in such proceedings. The court found that the corresponding application of Rules 125 and 131 RoP—which govern the determination of damages and compensation and expressly provide for interest—was not warranted because there was no unintentional regulatory gap. The court reasoned that the very existence of those provisions shows the legislator was aware of the problems of time delay and inflation, yet deliberately chose not to provide for interest on cost reimbursement. The court noted that Rule 131.2(a) RoP requires the indication of interest in applications for damages determination, while the corresponding Rule 151 RoP for cost determination lacks any such provision. The court further observed that in preliminary injunction proceedings, the successful party can instead request provisional cost reimbursement and immediately enforce it (Rule 221 No. 1(d) RoP), and this possibility also exists before the Court of Appeal (Rule 242 No. 2(a) RoP). The court left open whether any actual interest damage could be claimed separately within the framework of damages calculation.

The final order required the respondents to pay Edwards a total of EUR 244,000.00 within 20 days of service of the order. The remainder of Edwards' application (i.e., the interest claim) was rejected. The order is subject to appeal under Rule 157 RoP via Rule 221 RoP, with a 15-day deadline from service to file an application for leave to appeal.