Short Summary
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3769722. The order addresses multiple case management issues raised during an interim conference, including the value of the case, scheduling relative to parallel EPO opposition proceedings, admissibility of late-filed attacks on inventive step, and various other procedural requests. The Court set the total case value at 6,000,000 EUR, declined to reschedule the oral hearing, excluded certain late-filed inventive step attacks, and ruled on the admissibility of auxiliary requests, equivalence arguments, and expert-related requests.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued on 10 December 2024 by Presiding Judge and Judge-Rapporteur Stefan Johansson of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC_CFI_380/2023. The Claimant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (a US company based in Irvine, California), brought an infringement action against six Defendants: Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited (India), Meril GmbH (Germany), SMIS International OÜ (Estonia), Sormedica UAB (Lithuania), Interlux UAB (Lithuania), and VAB-Logistik UAB (Lithuania). The patent at issue is EP3769722, and the Defendants filed six counterclaims for revocation.
The order followed an interim conference held on 5 November 2024 by video, during which several procedural matters were discussed.
Value of the Case: The Parties agreed, and the Court accepted, that the value of the infringement action should be set at 3,000,000 EUR, the value of the six counterclaims for revocation at 3,000,000 EUR, and the total value of the proceeding at 6,000,000 EUR for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs.
Parallel EPO Proceedings: The EPO Opposition Division scheduled its hearing on a third-party opposition targeting the same patent for 17 January 2025, one day after the UPC oral hearing scheduled for 16 January 2025. The Defendants requested rescheduling to await the EPO outcome; the Claimant wished to proceed as planned. The Court noted that UPC proceedings aim to conclude within one year, which would not be met in this case regardless. The Court also noted that the EPO Opposition Division normally delivers its decision orally at the end of the hearing, so the outcome could be available before the UPC issues its decision. The Court decided not to reschedule but would request the Parties to inform it of the EPO outcome after the UPC hearing.
Romania's Ratification of the UPCA: The Claimant confirmed that the case is based only on the Patent with unitary effect, and remedies sought are limited to States where the Patent has unitary effect (excluding Romania).
Late-Filed Attacks on Inventive Step: The Defendants' initial Counterclaim for revocation alleged lack of inventive step based on two lines of attack: (1) US patent application US 2008/0065011 A1 (HL-CC6) as closest prior art, and (2) European patent EP 0787019 B1 (HL-CC7) as closest prior art, each combined with common general knowledge and/or documents HL-CC9 to HL-CC13 or prior public use of the CoreValve system. In their Reply, the Defendants added attacks based on the product RetroFlex (as distinct from the HL-CC6 document) and on HL-CC9 to HL-CC13 as alternative starting points. The Claimant requested exclusion of these additional attacks. The Court agreed with the Paris Central Division's conclusion in ACT_555899/2023 that grounds for revocation that could have been included in the initial statement are inadmissible if they do not relate to the defence or application to amend. The Court held that the US patent application (HL-CC6) and the product RetroFlex must be treated as two separate pieces of prior art, and that adding RetroFlex as an alternative starting point was not a legitimate response to the Claimant's position on common general knowledge. The Court excluded the late-filed attacks based on RetroFlex or documents HL-CC9 to HL-CC13 as starting points.
Other Procedural Matters: The Court ruled that (1) the auxiliary requests are admissible; (2) the Claimant's arguments based on equivalence are admissible; (3) the Defendants' new position in relation to Claim 2 is admissible; (4) there is no need at this stage to make a preliminary reference to the CJEU; (5) the request for a Court expert is rejected; and (6) there are not sufficient reasons for hearing party experts in person, as the Defendants had not submitted a Rule 176 application specifying concrete facts requiring in-person testimony. The Court noted that the written expert statement would still be treated as evidence like any other.
Practical Matters: The Court confirmed that validity would be discussed before infringement at the oral hearing, declined to order preliminary cost estimates, and required that any slides used during presentations be sent to the Court and opposing party by email when each presentation begins.
The order is subject to review by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP upon a reasoned application by a party.
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, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.vsEdwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. against a cost order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings initiated by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 763 331 relating to a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses. After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist declaration that Edwards accepted, the first-instance court found the interim measures moot, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Meril to bear the costs up to €200,000. Meril appealed seeking to shift the costs to Edwards and requested suspensive effect of the appeal.
Qualcomm IncorporatedvsRespondent
Qualcomm Incorporated filed a patent infringement action on 17 July 2024 before the Local Division Munich against six defendants concerning European patent EP 2 286 325. After reaching a settlement with Defendant 1 (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings), Qualcomm withdrew the action on 17 January 2025 and applied for a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of €18,600.00 to the Claimant.
Fujifilm CorporationvsKodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, and alleging added matter. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement by the defendants' SONORA XTRA-3 product, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.
ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDAvsBOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH sought a preliminary injunction before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Zentiva Portugal, Lda, alleging imminent infringement of European Patent EP 1 830 843 B1, which protects the use of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The Court rejected the application, finding that Boehringer failed to demonstrate imminent infringement arising directly from Zentiva's conduct, particularly given that the Portuguese Intellectual Property Court had already granted a preliminary injunction in parallel proceedings. The Applicants were ordered to pay the Defendant interim costs of EUR 92,944.15.
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Inc, Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V.vsGlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A.
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_476/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 02/12/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of revocation : Not provided GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. (Defendant)
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.