Short Summary
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl against European Patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, relating to prosthetic heart valve systems with sealing mechanisms to prevent perivalvular leakage. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation. The claimant argued that the patent was invalid for several reasons, including that the subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. The patent at issue was filed on 16 July 2012 as a divisional application and claims priority from US applications of 15 July 2011 and 13 July 2012.
Detailed Summary
This matter was heard by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Paris seat), before Panel 2 composed of Presiding Judge Paolo Catallozzi (also judge-rapporteur), Legally Qualified Judge Tatyana Zhilova, and Technically Qualified Judge Stefan Wilhelm. The claimant in the revocation action was Meril Italy Srl, represented by Emmanuel Larere and Raphaëlle Dequiré-Portier of Cabinet Gide Loyrette Nouel AARPI, assisted by Jean-Robert Callon de Lamarck and Anne Seibel of Cabinet Regimbeau, and Jonathan Stafford and Gregory Carty-Hornsby of Marks & Clerk LLP. The counterclaimants were Meril GmbH (based in Bonn, Germany) and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd (based in Gujarat, India), both represented by Andreas von Falck of Hogan Lovells International LLP. The defendant was Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (based in Irvine, California, USA), represented by Boris Kreye and Elsa Tzschoppe of Bird & Bird LLP, Bernhard Thum and Jonas Weickert of Thum & Partner, and Siddharth Kusumakar, Tessa Waldron, and Bryce Matthewson of Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP.
The patent at issue, European Patent No. EP 3 646 825, was filed on 16 July 2012 as a divisional application of EP 3 205 309 (parent application), which itself was a divisional application of EP 2 731 552 (grandparent application). The grandparent application was filed as international application WO 2013/012801. The patent claims priority from two earlier US patent applications dated 15 July 2011 (US 201161508456 P) and 13 July 2012 (US 201213549068).
The patent relates to embodiments of a prosthetic heart valve having a sealing mechanism designed to prevent or minimize perivalvular leakage. Independent claim 1 defines a system comprising a prosthetic valve with a collapsible and expandable annular frame made up entirely of hexagonal cells defined by six struts (two opposing side struts, a pair of lower angled struts, and a pair of upper angled struts), along with a delivery catheter comprising an inflatable balloon for crimping and deploying the valve. On 4 August 2023, Meril Italy Srl filed a revocation action against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning EP 3 646 825, registered as No. ACT_551308/2023 (UPC_CFI_255/2023). Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd subsequently filed counterclaims for revocation registered as No. CC_584916/2023 and CC_585030/2023 (UPC_CFI_15/2023). The claimant argued that the patent was not valid for several reasons, including that the subject matter of the patent was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed.
& Analysis: The judgment text provided is truncated and does not include the full reasoning or analysis of the court. The available text establishes the procedural background, the identity of the parties and their representatives, the technical scope of the patent at issue, and the initial grounds for revocation asserted by the claimant.
Final Order & Ruling: The full text of the decision and final order is not contained within the provided excerpt of the judgment. The decision was issued on 19 July 2024 by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division, Paris seat.
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 Meril GmbH vs Edwards Lifesciences Corporation u. a. 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.