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
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbHvsRespondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP3065184 (relating to trench processes and structures for back side contact solar cells) applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance was required to assess the admissibility of the application and the merits of the language change request. The order addressed both procedural admissibility of the English-language submission and the substantive balancing of interests between the parties regarding the language of proceedings.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 2 June 2026, addresses multiple legal questions arising from proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174 validated in Germany and the United Kingdom. The headnotes cover issues of claim construction (particularly regarding numerical values and manufacturing tolerances), private prior use under Article 28 UPCA and German law, front-loaded proceedings under Rule 29(c) RoP, international jurisdiction under Article 34 UPCA and Brussels I bis, and the exercise of international jurisdiction including the application of comity principles when patents validated outside the UPC territory are at issue.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd., No.88 Weilai 3rd Road, Leonard Lotz, Bird & Bird LLP, Am Sandtorkai 50, 20457vsMicron Technology, Inc., 8000 South Federal Way Boise, Idaho, Micron Europe Ltd., Venture House 2 Arlington Square, Downsh
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 909 047, the Defendants (Micron entities) sought to restrict the Claimant's access to confidential technical information about their Z01M die, requesting either an 'attorneys' eyes only' order or access limited to a single employee, with a five-year bar on SDRAM-related work. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the 'attorneys' eyes only' order and the five-year professional bar as disproportionate, but granted access to four named employees of the Claimant. The Court also permitted the Defendants to withdraw the Z01M die submission by 20 August 2026 to avoid potential breaches of US export control restrictions.
WEPA Nederland B.V.vsEssity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag
This is an appeal by WEPA Nederland B.V. against an ex parte order of the Hague Local Division granting Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag measures for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP in connection with European patent EP 3 289 139 (relating to tissue paper comprising Miscanthus pulp fibers). The Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal, revoking the parts of the order that permitted Essity or its representatives to ask WEPA personnel direct questions about technical details of WEPA's products or processes, while otherwise largely upholding the preservation measures.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.vsMicron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, Micron Semiconductor France SAS
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the timing of new arguments raised by the Defendants in their Rejoinder in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 909 047. The Claimant sought to have the Defendants' new arguments regarding the Z01M die prior use right and the 'internal mode' of the Y2BM die disregarded as belated, or alternatively to be permitted to file further written pleadings. The Düsseldorf Local Division deferred the decision on whether to reject the new arguments until during or after the oral hearing, but granted the Claimant the opportunity to respond in writing to the new arguments by 17 September 2026.
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.