Executive Summary
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed rectification requests filed by Meril (the defendants) concerning a prior infringement and revocation action involving Edwards Lifesciences' prosthetic heart valve patent. The court agreed to correct several statements in the original decision, including clarifying claim scope and correcting clerical errors regarding opposition dates and disclosure orders. This ruling underscores the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting obvious mistakes in judicial decisions.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The UPC Court of First Instance exercised its power to rectify clerical errors and obvious mistakes in prior decisions (ORD_598588/2023 and ORD_69128/2024) upon request by the defendants, provided the rectification was based on a correction of obvious error or clerical mistake. The court confirmed that procedural requests must be linked to specific action numbers.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Munich (DE) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbHvsAmgen, Inc.
This Court of Appeal decision addressed an application by Sanofi and Regeneron seeking suspensive effect on a ruling that rejected their request for patent revocation. The court ruled against the applicants, emphasizing that applications for rehearing do not inherently possess suspensive effect under UPC rules. The decision underscores the high threshold required to suspend proceedings based on procedural defects in the UPC.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AGvsTandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion regarding simultaneous interpretation during oral hearings in an infringement case involving diabetes technology. The respondents, who were non-German speakers, requested court-ordered translation to ensure their right to be heard given the complexity of the technical and legal issues. The Local Division acknowledged the need for accessibility but ultimately denied the request that the costs be covered by the proceedings. This ruling reinforces the principle that while procedural fairness is paramount, the financial burden of specialized services like simultaneous interpretation generally rests with the requesting party unless explicitly mandated otherwise.
air up group GmbHvsGuangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
In a decision by default, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a preliminary injunction in favor of air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. The case concerned infringement of EP 3 897 305, which protects an innovative drinking device designed for retronasal aroma reception. Since the defendant failed to respond to the application, the court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering a cease and desist across all UPC Member States.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L.vsDyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. initiated a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492 held by Dyson Technology Limited before the UPC Central Division Milan. The parties subsequently reached an agreement and signed a term sheet to settle the dispute. Following this settlement, SharkNinja requested withdrawal of its action, which the court allowed. This decision highlights how amicable settlements can lead to the early closure of complex patent litigation within the UPC framework.
Daedalus Prime LLCvsXiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Hamburg addressed complex bifurcation requests between an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP2792100. Recognizing the efficiency gains from consolidating validity arguments, the court referred the revocation counterclaim to the Central Division Paris. Crucially, the local division decided not to suspend or separate the ongoing infringement proceedings immediately, opting instead to continue them while awaiting the outcome of the parallel revocation action.
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.