Executive Summary
This UPC decision addressed a request for rectification concerning the allocation of legal costs following a complex merits judgment. The Claimant, Edwards Lifesciences, had achieved partial success—upholding the patent as amended while finding infringement and invalidity. The Defendants argued that the original cost order was incomplete, failing to allocate 25% of their own costs. The Court firmly rejected this argument, confirming that the initial decision provided a fair and equitable distribution of costs under Article 69 UPCA.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court confirmed that in cases of partial success, an equitable distribution of costs is permissible under Article 69(2) UPCA. The court found that the initial decision correctly allocated costs, allowing the Claimant to recover 100% of infringement action costs and 75% of revocation counterclaim costs.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Nordic Baltic Regional Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation vs Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a request by VIVO to stay the main infringement proceedings and grant an extension of time limits in light of pending appeals regarding confidentiality orders and jurisdictional challenges (PO). The Court of Appeal ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure. The ruling reinforces that specialized provisions like R. 21.2 RoP are narrowly construed and that procedural management requests must generally be directed to the Court of First Instance.
Barco N.V.vsYealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural applications from Barco N.V., which sought leave to change its infringement claim and requested an exchange of further written pleadings against Yealink. The court denied the request for a claim amendment because it broadened the scope without sufficient justification regarding prior diligence. Furthermore, the application for more written exchanges was rejected as no new facts or evidence were introduced by the respondent. This ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements within UPC proceedings concerning claim amendments and the introduction of new arguments.
Aesculap AGvsShanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addresses procedural matters in a patent infringement case involving Aesculap AG and several Shanghai Bojin entities concerning EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, while also proposing to expand the scope of the dispute to include an additional product, the 'Bojin Rosenfräser.' This move is intended to ensure procedural efficiency and prevent future litigation.
Syntorr LPvsArthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning procedural fairness in the UPC, the Court of Appeal addressed an application for security for costs. The court held that if a claimant holds comprehensive litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement (AAE) from an EU insurer, this coverage is sufficient to mitigate the risk of non-recoverable legal costs. This decision provides substantial relief to SMEs and claimants by establishing that financial solvency can be demonstrated through robust insurance rather than solely relying on bank guarantees.
Ona Patents SLvsApple Inc., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
Ona Patents SL initiated infringement proceedings against Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, which included a counterclaim for revocation. In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division decided to proceed with a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. This decision streamlines the process by ensuring that validity and infringement are assessed under a single, uniform interpretation of the patent by the same judicial panel.
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.