Short Summary
This is a rectification order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent related to heart valve prostheses. Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (the defendants in the underlying infringement action) applied under Rule 353 RoP to rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, and obvious slips in the court's decision of 15 November 2024. The court granted several rectifications relating to factual inaccuracies on pages 13, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53, and 59 of the decision, while dismissing the remaining requests.
Detailed Summary
This order concerns an application for rectification under Rule 353 RoP filed by Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Defendants) in the underlying infringement action UPC_CFI_15/2023, in which Edwards Lifesciences Corporation is the Claimant and the patent at issue is European Patent No. 3 646 825, relating to heart valve prostheses including the Myval Octacor.
Meril sought rectification of the Court of First Instance (Munich Local Division) decision of 15 November 2024 (order no. ORD_598479/2023), making eight specific requests for corrections across multiple pages of the decision:
1. Page 13: Correction to clarify that Meril argued features I.3, I.4, and I.5a were not realized, and that they also argued features I.5b and I.5c were not realized.
2. Page 14: Correction of 'Düsseldorf-based' to 'Bonn-based' for Meril GmbH.
3. Page 28: Correction regarding Dr. Mayer's expert opinion about connections to neighboring struts.
4. Page 29: Correction regarding the source of the definition of 'strut' (encyclopedia.com rather than Webster dictionary).
5. Page 40: Deletion of a statement about EPO findings regarding Levi.
6. Pages 39 and 41: Correction regarding Mr. Jessen's declaration, changing 'DK' to 'the Netherlands' and 'EP'828' to 'EP'928'.
7. Page 53: Correction that Exhibit K 27 was submitted by Edwards (Claimant), not Meril.
8. Page 59: Corrections regarding the timeline of license requests.
The court analyzed each request under Rule 353 RoP, which permits rectification of clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, and obvious slips. The court granted the rectifications for pages 13, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53, and 59, finding these to be valid clerical mistakes or obvious slips. The court dismissed the requests concerning page 29 (regarding the Webster dictionary reference) and page 40 (regarding the EPO's findings on Levi), finding these were not clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, or obvious slips.
The final order, issued on 17 February 2025, rectified the decision accordingly and dismissed the remaining application for rectification. The panel consisted of presiding judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, legally qualified judges Margot Kokke and Tobias Pichlmaier, and technically qualified judge Dr. Stefan Wilhelm.
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 Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh vs Respondent 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.