Short Summary
In a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3646 825 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat), the claimant Meril Italy srl requested permission to exchange further written pleadings to respond to new arguments raised by the defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in its rejoinder. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the claimant had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting further pleadings and that any reaction to the defendant's arguments could be made during the oral hearing. The request for leave to appeal was also rejected.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by Judge-Rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Paris seat), on 27 February 2024, in the context of revocation action UPC_CFI_255/2023 concerning European patent EP 3646 825.
The applicant, Meril Italy srl, had lodged a revocation action against the patent on 4 August 2023. The respondent, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, filed its statement of defence on 16 October 2023, including a conditional application to amend the patent. The claimant submitted its reply on 22 December 2023, and the defendant filed its rejoinder on 22 January 2024.
On 22 February 2024, the claimant requested, pursuant to Rules 12(5), 36, 43(5), and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, permission to exchange further written pleadings. The claimant argued that the defendant's rejoinder introduced completely new defence arguments regarding the priority issue—specifically that the subject-matter of claim 1 derives directly and unambiguously from P1—and supplemented its defence with new arguments concerning the alleged scope of the patent at issue.
The court analyzed the request under Rule 36 RoP, which gives the judge-rapporteur discretionary powers to allow further exchange of written pleadings. The court noted that while exercising these discretionary powers, judges must observe the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity as set out in the preamble of the Rules of Procedure. The court also emphasized that the written procedure regime must ensure due process while allowing parties to delimit the subject-matter of proceedings, and that proceedings should be concluded rapidly, respecting the one-year period set by the preamble for infringement and revocation actions.
The court rejected the request, reasoning that under Rule 52 RoP, the defendant's rejoinder must be limited to a response to matters raised in the reply. If the rejoinder respects this limit, the claimant is not entitled to lodge a further pleading, as no extraordinary circumstance has occurred, and the claimant may react to the defendant's last pleading during the oral hearing. Conversely, if the rejoinder exceeds this limit, the court would consider the relevant part as not lodged, meaning the claimant would have no interest in replying to it.
The judge-rapporteur also declined to grant leave to appeal, noting the absence of precedents from the Unified Patent Court on the disputed issue and observing that, given the advanced stage of the written procedure and the imminent holding of the interim conference and oral hearing, any appeal decision would likely be issued after the oral hearing and would therefore be of no practical use to the parties.
The final order rejected both the request to allow further exchange of written pleadings and the request for leave to appeal.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat. Understanding the court's reasoning in Meril Italy srl vs Edwards Lifesciences Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)vsHisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et al.
This is a rectification decision issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 27 April 2026 in case UPC_CFI_716/2025 concerning European Patent EP 2 258 692 B1. The Court corrected a calculation error in Section V of its earlier order dated 16 February 2026, finding that 60% of the court fees amounted to €18,600 rather than the previously stated €14,400.
Dolby International ABvsEpson France SAS
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against Epson France SAS and four other Epson entities before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. Epson France SAS objected under Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because Dolby's withdrawal of its prior opt-out was invalid, as it did not cover all states where the patent had been granted. The court rejected the objection as unfounded, holding that the withdrawal was effectively declared for all relevant states through the CMS system and that the subsequent 'correction' was merely a clarification, and ordered the proceedings to continue.
10x Genomics, Inc.vsCurio Bioscience Inc.
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 2 May 2025 in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The order addresses preparatory matters for the oral hearing, including translation requirements, publication requests, cost estimates, and time limits for oral submissions. The court set a deadline of 9 May 2025 for the parties to respond to the court's requests and information.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbHvsTandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
This is a cost decision by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1. Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought reimbursement of its costs from Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. The Court dismissed the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings pending appeal, resolved an inconsistency in the amount claimed, and determined the recoverable costs at EUR 117,741.62.
10x Genomics, Inc.vsCurio Bioscience Inc.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Court addressed the Defendant's late application to make a sample available for inspection, noting that the Defendant had not provided reasons for submitting the sample after the closure of written proceedings and only one week before the hearing. The Court indicated it was considering disregarding the late submission under R. 9.2 RoP and would decide on the issue at the oral hearing.
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.