Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.

App_16619/2024

In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by the defendants for an extension to file their Statement of Defence (SoD). The defendants argued that the recent change in the language of proceedings from German to English justified the delay. However, the court rejected this request, emphasizing that deadline extensions must be granted only under exceptional circumstances. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining procedural efficiency while acknowledging the need for fair trial rights.

Jurisdiction
European UPC
Court
Munich (DE) Local Division
Case Number
App_16619/2024
Judge(s)
The full panel in the main proceedings is composed as follows

What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi

The UPC requires that extensions of deadlines be granted only in exceptional circumstances, balancing the principle of fair trial against the need for expeditious proceedings. The court found that the language change did not constitute a sufficient or plausible justification for the requested extension.

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 GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentORD_69409/2024

bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda.vsLabrador Diagnostics LLC

In this complex UPC case involving bioMérieux and Labrador Diagnostics, the Court issued a critical procedural order following an interim conference. Recognizing that the patent EP 3 756 767 B1 faced an overwhelming number of invalidity attacks, the Panel mandated that the challenging party (bioMérieux) significantly narrow its focus. This ruling emphasizes the need for legal rigor and strategic clarity in complex revocation proceedings, ensuring the oral hearing remains focused on the most promising grounds of attack.

patentUPC_CoA_646/2025

Amgen N.V.vsRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Amgen against a prior ruling in infringement proceedings. The case, involving major biotech players like Regeneron and Sanofi, was ultimately withdrawn because the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Although the court permitted the procedural withdrawal, it strictly denied Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees, highlighting the precise application of UPC Rules of Procedure regarding timing and fee recovery.

patentORD_33617/2025

ZTE CorporationvsSamsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L.

This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the valuation of cases involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and FRAND counterclaims. The Court ruled that a FRAND counterclaim significantly expands the scope and value in dispute beyond the initial infringement action, distinguishing it from a simple defense or a revocation counterclaim. This ruling clarifies that SEPs litigation can involve complex valuations based on licensing terms, even if those fees exceed standard infringement claim values.

patentUPC_CFI_771/2025

Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A.vsZhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd.

This UPC decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the composition of a confidentiality club in an ongoing infringement/revocation action involving Solvay Specialty Polymers and Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical. The Court confirmed the initial order, upholding the inclusion of non-employee experts from the claimant's economic unit. The ruling clarifies that access to confidential information is not strictly limited to direct employees, significantly broadening who can be included for effective litigation.

patentApp_11795/2024

Network System Technologies LLCvsVolkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH

This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against major automotive and semiconductor players regarding patent EP 1 552 399 B1. The Court partially dismissed NST's arguments concerning jurisdiction, standing, and the scope of infringing embodiments. Crucially, the court ruled that complex issues, such as damages related to the UK market or validity questions already pending elsewhere, must be addressed in the main proceedings to ensure procedural efficiency. This ruling signals a pragmatic approach by the UPC CFI, balancing the need for preliminary filtering with the goal of efficient case management.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call