Short Summary
This is an order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning three related cases (UPC_CFI_775/2025, UPC_CFI_776/2025, and UPC_CFI_777/2025) involving patent EP 3 769 722 B1. Following a merits decision on 21 July 2025 in case CFI 380/2023, the parties jointly requested a stay of the cost proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal (case T-241/25-3.2.02). The Court granted the stay and also provisionally granted the parties' confidentiality requests regarding certain cost application documents.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court on 5 December 2025 by presiding judge Stefan Johansson, acting as judge-rapporteur, in three consolidated proceedings: UPC_CFI_775/2025, UPC_CFI_776/2025, and UPC_CFI_777/2025.
The patent at issue is EP 3 769 722 B1. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation is the applicant in CFI_775/2025 and respondent in the other two cases. The respondents/applicants in the other cases include Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited (India), Meril GmbH (Germany), SMIS International OÜ (Estonia), Sormedica UAB (Lithuania), Interlux UAB (Lithuania), and VAB-Logistik UAB (Lithuania).
Background: On 21 July 2025, the Court issued its decision on the merits in case CFI 380/2023, which included an infringement action and counterclaims for revocation. In that decision, the Court decided in principle on the obligation to bear legal costs and other expenses. On 21 August 2025, the parties submitted applications for cost decisions and applications for the protection of confidential information. On 30 September 2025, the parties jointly requested a stay of the cost proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings against EP 3 769 722 B1 currently pending before the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (case no. T-241/25-3.2.02).
The parties clarified their confidentiality requests based on Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) and/or mutual agreement. They requested that the Court's order on stay include provisional protection against the other party or its representatives disclosing alleged confidential information to third parties. The parties agreed to keep the alleged confidential information confidential pending the Court's order.
Court's Reasoning: The Court noted that under Rule 295(d) RoP, the Court may stay proceedings at the joint request of the parties, and found no reason to refuse the requested stay. Regarding confidentiality, the Court relied on Rule 262 RoP (which allows alleged confidential information to be kept confidential pending a request from the public) and Rule 262A RoP (which allows the Court to restrict the use of certain information, including protection against disclosure to third parties). The Court found the provisional confidentiality requests justified and noted that a culpable breach could result in a penalty payment.
Order: The Court (1) stayed all three proceedings pending the EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision; (2) restricted access to the unredacted version of Edwards' Cost Application and Exhibits EDW-Costs-2 and EDW-Costs-3 to the Defendants and their representatives; (3) restricted access to the unredacted versions of the Meril parties' Cost Applications and Exhibits HL Costs 1 to 6 to the Claimant and its representatives; (4) ordered that unredacted versions marked as 'HC' (Highly Confidential) be made available to the opposing party in the CMS subject to the restrictions; (5) warned that culpable breach could result in periodic penalty payments; (6) ordered the parties to inform the Court of the outcome of the EPO Board of Appeal decision; and (7) gave the parties the opportunity to submit further comments on confidentiality requests when informing the Court about the EPO outcome.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Nordic Baltic Regional Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation vs Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.vsAdvanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered the referral of a counterclaim for revocation and the corresponding patent amendment request to the Central Chamber Paris. The court reasoned that since nearly all attacks against the patent in suit (EP 4 074 373) were already being pursued in a prior central revocation action filed by the first defendant, efficiency considerations favored having the Central Chamber decide on the counterclaim as well. The defendants' objections regarding the risk of divergent decisions, change of language, and the advanced stage of the central proceedings were rejected.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.vsSichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Rectification application under Rule 353 RoP before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, concerning European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1 ('motorcycles tyre'). Pirelli sought correction of a material error in a prior decision dated 26.5.2026, which erroneously stated that Pirelli had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023 and later withdrew it on 26.11.2024. The Court found the request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence, as the defendant did not file any observations.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna et al
A procedural order of the Court of First Instance addressing three applications in a patent infringement action concerning EP2590626. The court granted GSK's R.263 application to amend its claim to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE, dismissed Moderna's R.9 application to strike out GSK's allegedly late-filed submissions and evidence, and ordered GSK to submit a tabular overview of its 40 auxiliary requests while rejecting Moderna's request to limit the number of ARs to ten or dismiss them en bloc.
Hologic, Inc.vsSiemens Healthineers AG and Others
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 352 431 B1, in which the court rejected Hologic's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional brief formal comments on the Defendants' submissions dated September 24, 2025. The court held that the request was vague as Hologic failed to specify any new facts, and that Hologic's right to be heard was not unduly restricted since it retained the right to oppose the submissions and would have ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing.
REEL InternationalvsFives ECL
REEL International filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 1 740 740 owned by Fives ECL before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Unified Patent Court. Fives ECL raised a preliminary objection seeking to have the court decline jurisdiction based on REEL International's alleged lack of standing (intérêt à agir) and the res judicata effect of German court decisions on the German part of the patent. The judge-rapporteur rejected the preliminary objection, holding that lack of standing and res judicata are not among the exhaustive list of preliminary objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure.
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.