Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the appeal fee in a dispute over European Patent EP 3 763 331 (a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses). The Court of Appeal determined that Meril, as appellants, must pay an appeal fee of €11,000 by analogy to the fee for an appeal under Rule 220.1(c) RoP regarding provisional measures under Article 62 EPCA, since the fee table contains no specific provision for an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP against a costs order issued under Rule 360 RoP.
Detailed Summary
Background: Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sent a cease-and-desist letter to Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. on June 19, 2023, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 763 331, which concerns a crimping device for crimping stent-based valve prostheses, particularly heart valve prostheses. On July 18, 2023, Edwards filed an application for provisional measures (interim injunction) at the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court. On September 25, 2023, Meril submitted a cease-and-desist and obligation declaration, which Edwards accepted on September 29, 2023. On October 2, 2023, both parties agreed the proceedings were resolved under Rule 360 RoP, but disagreed on the question of who should bear the costs.
First Instance Order: On December 19, 2023, the Court of First Instance (Local Chamber Munich) found that the application for provisional measures had become moot due to Meril's declaration, terminated the proceedings, ordered Meril to bear the costs of the proceedings and other costs of Edwards up to a cap of €200,000, set the dispute value at €1,500,000, and allowed appeal.
Appeal: On January 2, 2024, Meril filed an appeal against the costs order, seeking to have the costs imposed on Edwards instead, and paid €1,500 as the appeal fee under Rule 220.2 RoP. Meril also filed a separate request for suspensive effect (APL_100/2024), which the Court of Appeal rejected on January 18, 2024, holding that the costs order under Rule 360 RoP constitutes a final decision within the meaning of Rule 220.1(a) RoP. Meril's representative then inquired whether a higher appeal fee was due, while Edwards argued that the fee for an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP applied.
Court of Appeal's Reasoning: The Court of Appeal, presided over by Judge Peter Blok, held that an appeal fee of €11,000 was due. It reasoned that the fee table contains no specific fee for an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP against an order determining costs under Rule 360 RoP. In the absence of a specific fee, the fee applicable to the case most closely comparable under the systematics of the fee table must be applied. The Court found that the provision governing an appeal under Rule 220.1(c) RoP regarding an application for provisional measures under Article 62 EPCA, which sets a fee of €11,000, should be applied by analogy, since the present appeal also concerns an order ending proceedings regarding an application for provisional measures under Article 62 EPCA. The Court further held that the fact that the appeal only challenges the costs allocation does not alter this assessment, noting that Meril's own appeal submissions imply that the merits of the provisional measures application may be subject to review by the Court of Appeal.
Decision: The Court of Appeal ordered Meril to pay the remaining balance of €9,500 (since €1,500 had already been paid) within 14 calendar days.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. vs Edwards Lifesciences Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINEvsHELIOS K.K, RIKEN
Unified Patent Court decision.
Amgen, Inc.vsSanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A. and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 666 697, which relates to antibodies targeting PCSK9 for lowering LDL cholesterol. The Court of First Instance (Munich central division) had revoked the patent, but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision, finding that the claimed invention involves an inventive step and rejecting the respondents' requests to revoke the patent in its entirety.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.vsInterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and other Disney entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. before the Local Division Mannheim, applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, the language in which the patent EP3259902 was granted, without imposing specific translation or interpretation arrangements.
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a preparatory order issued by the Mannheim Local Division in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 476 616, brought by FUJIFILM Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order sets out preliminary views and questions ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 11–13 February 2025, addressing issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law for pre- and post-UPCA infringing acts, the value of the dispute, prior use defences, and validity questions concerning prior art documents WO 379 and US 952.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KGvsLight Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendants' objection (Einspruch) challenging the admissibility of an infringement action concerning EP 3 685 783. The court held that the Munich chamber had jurisdiction because, at the time the infringement action was filed on November 20, 2024, the prior interim measures application between the same parties regarding the same patent was already pending before the Court of Appeal, not before another chamber of the Court of First Instance. The court further established that the action was deemed served on December 2, 2024.
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.