Short Summary
1 Nordic-Baltic - regional division UPC_CFI_8/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/08/2024 APPLICANT/CLAMIMANT 1) Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Applicant) - One Edwards Way - 92614 - Irvine, California - US Represented b
Detailed Summary
1
Nordic-Baltic - regional division
UPC_CFI_8/2023
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
delivered on 16/08/2024
APPLICANT/CLAMIMANT
1)
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
(Applicant) - One Edwards Way - 92614 -
Irvine, California - US
Represented by Magnus Dahlman, Jens Olssson, Siddhartha Kusumakar and Tessa Waldron
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS
1)
Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited
(Main proceeding party - Defendant) - Bilakhia House, Survey
No. 135/139, Muktanand Marg, Chala, - 396191 - Vapi, Gujarat
- IN
2)
Meril GmbH
(Main proceeding party - Defendant) - Bornheimer Strasse 135
– 137 - 53119 - Bonn - DE
3)
Smis International OÜ
(Main proceeding party - Defendant) - Harju maakond,
Kesklinna linnaosa, Kaarli pst 9-1a - 10119 - Tallinn - EE
4)
Sormedica UAB
(Main proceeding party - Defendant) - V. Kuzmos str. 28 -
08431 - Vilnius - LT
Represented by Andreas von Falck, Kerstin Jonen, Alexander Klicznik and Beatrice Wilden
PATENT AT ISSUE
Patent no.
Proprietor/s
EP2628464
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
No
2
DECIDING JUDGE Kai Härmand
COMPOSITION OF PANEL – FULL PANEL
Presiding judge
Stefan Johansson
Judge-rapporteur
Kai Härmand
Legally qualified judge
Rute Lopes
Technically qualified judge Elisabetta Papa
LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Infringement action & counterclaims for revocation
STATEMENT OF THE FORMS OF ORDER SOUGHT BY THE PARTIES AND SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. The proceedings have been stayed on 9.01.2024 pending the written decision of the Boards of
Appeal of the European Patent Office (TBA) in case no. T0308/23-3.2.01. The parties have
informed the court that the written decision of the TBA is available. The claimant proposed the
timetable for the resumption of the proceedings.
The defendants have proposed another timetable.
2. The decision of the TBA concerns EP 2 628 464 B1 (EP 464). Edwards is the proprietor of EP
464 and the second defendant / counterclaimant (Meril Germany) was the sole opponent in the EPO
opposition / appeal proceedings. Oral proceedings before the EPO TBA in T0308/23-3-2.01 took
place on 3 June 2024. The written reasons for the EPO’s decision were made available on 16 July
2024. The TBA rejected the appeal as inadmissible; the decision under appeal was set aside and the
case was remitted to the EPO Opposition Division with the order to maintain EP 464 in amended
form according to Auxiliary Request 6', which was filed at the EPO by Edwards with a letter of 24
May 2024 and was the main request at the oral proceedings before the TBA.
Edwards proposed timetable for the orderly resumption of the present UPC proceedings as follows:
a) Edwards shall lodge an amended statement of claim within 14 days of any further order of the
court addressing the requests set out in these submissions;
b) The defendants / counterclaimants shall file an amended defence and counterclaims for
revocation within 28 days of service amended statement of claim; and
c) Thereafter, the timetable shall proceed in the ordinary course according to the timetable set out
in the RoP.
Edwards proposed that the amended pleadings shall not be supplemented or amended in any way,
other than to consequentially address the outcome of the TBA Decision.
Edwards’ position is that this proposed course of action and accompanying timetable will allow the
proceedings to be expeditiously resumed, whilst giving the parties sufficient time to take account of
the findings in the TBA Decision. Edwards’ proposal will also allow the claims as upheld by the
TBA to be introduced into the proceedings in the most efficient way. In particular, R. 30 RoP does
not appear to apply in the present circumstances, given that the claims of EP 464 as granted are no
longer relevant and the patent will be amended centrally. Edwards further submits that the
defendants / counterclaimants will not suffer any preju
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 Respondent 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.