Short Summary
This case concerns a procedural dispute in damages proceedings before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court. Following a final 2025 decision finding that the Meril entities infringed Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 669 828, Edwards sought a deadline extension for filing its reply to Meril's defence because its UPC representative was not notified when the sub-registry changed the confidentiality status of documents. The court granted a limited two-day extension, finding Edwards' representative should have inquired with the sub-registry by 17 June 2026, but acknowledged that the CMS's lack of automatic notifications needed to be addressed.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 26 June 2026 in case UPC_CFI_1160/2026.
The proceedings arise from a prior decision of the Munich Local Division dated 4 April 2025, which held that Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., and Meril Italy S.r.l. (collectively, Meril) infringed European patent EP 3 669 828 B2 owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation with respect to the Myval Transcatheter Heart Valve and the Myval System. The Meril entities were held jointly and severally liable to compensate Edwards for damages suffered since 5 May 2021. That decision was not appealed and became final.
On 2 April 2026, Edwards filed an application for the determination of damages, including a request to lay open books. On 10 June 2026, Meril filed its defence along with an application for protection of confidential information. Edwards responded to the confidentiality application on 12 June 2026. On 15 June 2026, the Judge-Rapporteur granted the confidentiality request, and the sub-registry changed the status of the relevant documents from 'HC' to 'R' on the same day. However, no automatic notification email was sent to Edwards' UPC representative, who only became aware of the change on 23 June 2026.
EDWARDS' REQUESTS:
Edwards requested either (i) a declaration that the 14-day period under R. 142.3 RoP for filing its reply ran from 23 June 2026 (when it actually obtained access to the unredacted documents), or (ii) alternatively, an extension of the deadline such that it would expire 14 days from 23 June 2026 (i.e., 7 July 2026).
MERIL'S POSITION:
Meril did not object to a limited two-day extension but opposed any further extension.
COURT'S REASONING:
The court found that only a limited extension of two days could be granted. It reasoned that Edwards was aware of the JR's order dated 16 June 2026 instructing the sub-registry to change the confidentiality status, and execution of this order was expected by the next day at the latest. The change was in fact made on the same day, only two and a half hours after the order was uploaded. Had Edwards' UPC representative inquired with the sub-registry, they would have been informed of the successful change. The court therefore held that the representative should have inquired by 17 June 2026 at the latest.
The court also noted that the current sub-registry instructions need to be reviewed and amended because the CMS does not send automatic notifications when the confidentiality status of a document is changed, which had resulted in the present eight-page, twenty-paragraph application.
ORDER:
The court granted Edwards an extension to the deadline for filing its reply to the defence until 1 July 2026. The application was otherwise rejected. The order remains effective pending any review by the panel under R. 333 RoP.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation vs Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.