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
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbHvsRaimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Central Division (Munich) in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. The court directed the parties to upload their pleadings in the 'Request for amendment of a patent' workflow in the case management system by June 4, 2025, beginning with the defendant's response of February 28, 2025. The order was issued to allow the plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the reply concerning the patent amendment request of May 22, 2025, while reserving the question of whether a separate request and workflow are required for patent amendments for the interim proceedings or oral hearing.
Guardant Health, Inc.vsSophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health appealed an order of the Paris Local Division rejecting its application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding European Patent EP 3 443 066, and sought suspensive effect for the associated interim award of costs of EUR 400,000. The Court of Appeal held the application for suspensive effect admissible but unfounded, finding that Guardant failed to demonstrate manifest errors or infringement of fundamental procedural rights, as the record showed both parties had requested interim reimbursement of costs of EUR 600,000. The Court rejected Sophia's request to set a payment deadline and dismissed it as inadmissible.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 2 548 648, involving Rematec GmbH & Co KG as the appellant (plaintiff in infringement proceedings and defendant in nullity counterclaim proceedings) and Europe Forestry B.V. as the respondent (defendant in infringement and counterclaimant in nullity). The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding the need to examine dependent claims when the independent claim is upheld, the obligation to issue a final decision rather than remand, and the requirements for ordering publication of decisions under Article 80 EPGÜ. The decision establishes important principles about the scope of appellate review in combined infringement and nullity proceedings.
UERAN Technology LLCvsXiaomi Corporation a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-02-24) under reference UPC-000065, UERAN Technology LLC appeared in dispute with Xiaomi Corporation a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & CovsEPO
1 Paris Central Division Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts UPC_CFI_1771/2025 betreffend das EP 3 327 608 erlassen am 30. Dezember 2025 LEITSÄTZE: 1. Das Einheitliche Patentgericht wendet gemäß Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 20 des Übereinkommens üb
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.