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
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.