Short Summary
Procedural order concerning European Patent No. 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. Following a third party's (Erik Krahbichler) withdrawal of his application for access to the file, the defendant Meril Life Sciences withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. The Presiding Judge permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential.
Detailed Summary
This Procedural Order was issued by the Presiding Judge Matthias Zigann of the Local Division Munich on 9 April 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3669828. The claimant is Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, the defendant (applicant) is Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., and the third party (respondent) is Erik Krahbichler.
The procedural background involved Krahbichler applying for access to the file, to which both Edwards and Meril objected. Krahbichler subsequently withdrew his applications. Meril then filed applications for a decision on costs (ACT_60270/2024 in UPC_CFI_676/2024 and App_59832/2024 in UPC_CFI_501/2023) with briefs dated 7 November 2024, seeking reimbursement of EUR 8,379.00 in costs related to a prior access request. Meril also filed applications for protection of confidential information (App_4795/2025 and App_4792/2025) seeking to classify certain narratives, tables, and exhibits (Set of Exhibits HL C) as confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP, arguing these contained sensitive attorney-client information including descriptions of legal services, hours worked, hourly rates, and negotiated fees.
Krahbichler requested dismissal of the applications as inadmissible under RoP 9, and sought reimbursement of his own costs. The judge-rapporteur ordered Meril to provide written evidence of costs on 30 December 2024, and Meril filed an additional brief on 29 January 2025. On 8 January 2025, the Central Division Paris Seat issued an order in APP_56782/2024 (UPC_CFI_189/2024) dismissing a similar cost decision application in related proceedings involving the same parties.
On 17 March 2025, the judge-rapporteur provided guidance referencing the Paris order, indicating that no cost reimbursement was warranted in the context of a Rule 262 RoP application or its withdrawal, and suggesting withdrawal of the applications. On 21 March 2025, Meril withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and, subject to certain conditions, its confidentiality applications (App_14059/2025). Krahbichler was invited to file observations but did not.
The court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential to third parties or the public. The court noted that regarding confidentiality concerns, it was sufficient to order non-disclosure as would be the case under a successful Rule 262.2 application. Any party may request review by the panel pursuant to Rule 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 Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (UPC_CFI_501/2023 and UPC_CFI_676/2024) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Hand Held Products Inc.vsScandit AG and Scandit Inc.
This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) regarding European Patent EP4163816. Both parties, Hand Held Products Inc. and Scandit (AG and Inc), reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees since the written procedure was still ongoing.
CARDO SYSTEMS Ltd.vsSHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
CARDO SYSTEMS Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 4 240 194 relating to a fastening device for head-protective gear, obtained a default judgment against Shenzhen Asmax and Hong Kong Yiheng for infringement of the patent through their Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX products. After the defendants failed to file any defence or enter an appearance despite valid service, the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Local Division) granted injunctive relief, an interim award for damages of €56,000, and an interim award for costs of €28,000, jointly and severally against both defendants.
Ona Patents SLvsApple Inc. and Others
Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities regarding EP 2 263 098 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to the closure of written proceedings, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action, and the defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and released the security for costs previously provided by the claimant.
Maxell, Ltd.vsSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2061230. The court dismissed Samsung's request to extend the deadline for filing its rejoinder/reply submissions and admitted Maxell's 44 auxiliary requests into the proceedings. The court found the number of auxiliary requests reasonable given the large number of invalidity attacks asserted by Samsung and the manageable number of new features actually introduced.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o.vsSTADAPHARM GmbH a.o.
Sanofi and related entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (Stada, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the claimed subject-matter lacked inventive step over prior art describing Phase III clinical trials with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions accordingly.
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.