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.
BACKGROUND:
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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
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.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court granted a limited extension to the deadline for filing a reply to the defence, as the UPC representative for Edwards should have inquired with the sub-registry about the change in confidentiality status. The Court noted that the current instructions for the sub-registry are to be reviewed and amended to address the issue of automatic notifications when the confidentiality status of a document is changed.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation vs Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Dolby International ABvsEpson France SAS
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against Epson France SAS and four other Epson entities before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. Epson France SAS objected under Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because Dolby's withdrawal of its prior opt-out was invalid, as it did not cover all states where the patent had been granted. The court rejected the objection as unfounded, holding that the withdrawal was effectively declared for all relevant states through the CMS system and that the subsequent 'correction' was merely a clarification, and ordered the proceedings to continue.
Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.vsEx Parte
Procedural Order
LiNA Medical AGvsSchultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for preservation of evidence and inspection under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 RoP regarding European patent EP 2 593 025 B1. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the Applicant because the Defendant, despite receiving a CMS access code at the time of service on 18 November 2025, never logged into the CMS through a UPC representative, thereby forfeiting its opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests.
Carrier CorporationvsBITZER Electronics A/S
Unified Patent Court decision.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.vsAmazon.com, Inc. et al.
The defendants (Amazon entities) requested under Rule 115 RoP access to the audio recording of an oral hearing held on 14 November 2025 before the Local Division Mannheim, and permission to produce a complete transcript with the help of a professional transcriber for use in parallel US and UK proceedings. The court granted access to the audio recording at the premises of the Local Division Düsseldorf upon appointment, but rejected the request to produce a complete transcript, holding that Rule 115 RoP does not permit parties to create full transcripts for distribution outside UPC proceedings.
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.