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
***vsPROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG, AWMS.R.L., SCHNELL S.P.A.
In this legal proceeding before Milan (IT) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-04) under reference UPC-001670, *** appeared in dispute with PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG, AWMS.R.L., SCHNELL S.P.A. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
CANÈ S.p.A.vsFRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_419/2023 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 26/07/2024 DEMANDEUR 1) CANÈ S.p.A. Via Cuorgnè 42/A 10098 - Rivoli (TO) - IT Représenté par Konstantin Schallmoser DÉFENDEUR 1) FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe LimitedvsSyngenta Limited
This case concerns a request by the defendants (Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited) for confidential treatment of two exhibits (Confidential Exhibit SA-1 and Confidential Exhibit SA-9) filed in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. The claimant (Syngenta Limited) did not formally object to the confidentiality request and provided a list of employees within its group who would have access to the confidential information. The Presiding Judge granted the application, ordering that the information be treated as strictly confidential and not used or disclosed outside the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbHvsRespondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH pursuant to Rule 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) Issued on 12/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Samsung Electronics GmbH Am Kronberger Hang 6, 65824
Cardo Systems, Ltd.vsShenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. And other
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application for provisional measures without hearing the other party before the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court, seeking a preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited based on European Patent No. EP 4 240 194, which relates to a fastening device for communication units. The Court granted the provisional measures, including an injunction, an order for delivery up of infringing products at EICMA 2024, and penalty payments, subject to the Applicant providing security of €100,000.
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.