Short Summary
An unnamed member of the public, represented by Erik Krahbichler, applied for access to all written pleadings and evidence in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_380/2023) between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril et al. concerning EP 3 769 722. After the parties objected and Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited requested reimbursement of EUR 17,168.70 in legal costs, the Applicant withdrew the applications. The judge-rapporteur closed the proceedings on the access applications and dismissed the requests for reimbursement of legal costs, holding that Article 69 UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering a member of the public to reimburse costs incurred by parties consulted under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by Judge-Rapporteur Stefan Johansson of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court on 21 January 2025, in the context of main infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_380/2023) brought by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB, and Vab-Logistik UAB concerning European Patent EP 3 769 722, in which Meril et al. had filed counterclaims for revocation.
An unnamed Applicant, acting as a member of the public and represented by Erik Krahbichler, filed seven applications (App_33375/2024, App_33473/2024, App_33475/2024, App_33476/2024, App_33478/2024, App_33480/2024, and App_33481/2024) seeking access to all written pleadings and evidence in both the infringement proceedings and the revocation counterclaims. In accordance with Rule 262.1(b) RoP, the judge-rapporteur consulted Edwards and Meril et al., both of whom objected to the access requests and asked that they be dismissed. Meril et al. additionally requested that the Applicant be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings relating to the access requests.
During subsequent exchanges, the Applicant stated that the applications were made not only personally but also on behalf of SWAT Medical AB as co-applicant, and sought permission to amend the applications accordingly. Edwards and Meril et al. opposed this amendment. The Applicant also argued that there was no legal basis for ordering him to pay costs. The Applicant then withdrew the applications, which the judge-rapporteur interpreted as also withdrawing the request to add SWAT Medical AB as co-applicant. Edwards did not object to the withdrawal, and Meril et al. did not object either, but Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited persisted in seeking a cost decision under Rules 156.2 and 265.2(c) RoP, requesting reimbursement of EUR 17,168.70 (comprising EUR 6,537.17 for the infringement access request, EUR 7,616.53 for the six counterclaim access requests, and EUR 3,015.00 for work by assisting representatives).
Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited relied on Rule 265.2(c) RoP, the Court of Appeal's decision of 10 April 2024 in UPC_CoA_404/2023, and an order of 18 September 2024 in UPC_CFI_8/2023. The judge-rapporteur noted that the Court of Appeal decision in UPC_CoA_404/2023 did not clearly establish a right to recover legal costs in access-to-document proceedings, and that the UPC_CFI_8/2023 order likewise failed to explain the legal basis for a cost decision.
The judge-rapporteur reasoned that the legal basis for ordering reimbursement of legal costs lies in Article 69.1 UPCA, which is based on Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC (the Enforcement Directive). The Enforcement Directive provision does not apply to requests by members of the public for access to court file documents, and there is no indication in the UPCA that Article 69 was intended to apply in such situations. The judge-rapporteur further observed that any application of Article 69 presupposes a ceiling for recoverable costs, which has not been adopted for access-to-document requests, and that the judge-rapporteur is not required to determine the value of the proceedings in such cases (Rule 152.3 RoP). Additionally, Rule 262.1(b) RoP provides that the decision is taken by the judge-rapporteur after consulting the parties, indicating that the parties to the main proceedings are not considered parties to the access proceedings.
The judge-rapporteur also addressed Rule 265 RoP, holding that to the extent it applies directly or by analogy when an access application is withdrawn, its reference to the need for a cost decision is merely a reminder to issue such a decision if a legal basis exists, and does not itself create an obligation to reimburse costs.
Accordingly, the judge-rapporteur ordered that the proceedings on the seven access applications (and any related workflows) be closed, that the closure be entered on the register, and that the requests by Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited for reimbursement of legal costs be dismissed. Leave to appeal was granted.
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 Unnamed Applicant (Member of the Public) vs Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited (UPC_CFI_380/2023) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.vsAiko Energy Germany GmbH a. o.
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, involving a patent infringement action by Maxeon Solar against multiple defendants and counterclaims for revocation. Following settlement negotiations, the claimant withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaims for revocation. The court allowed the withdrawals, released the security for costs, but dismissed applications by both the claimant and defendants for partial reimbursement of court fees.
Ocado Innovation LimitedvsAutostore AS [et al.], Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP
Unified Patent Court decision.
INSULET CorporationvsEOFLOW Co. Ltd
Cost decision of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) concerning INSULET Corporation's application for recovery of legal costs arising from EOFLOW's application for leave to appeal and related appellate proceedings regarding a penalty order. The Court found the application admissible and partially well-founded, awarding INSULET a total of EUR 14,000 in reasonable and proportionate legal costs, while dismissing the parties' confidentiality requests.
Morello Forni Italia S.R.L. and Morello Forni S.A.S. di Morello Marco & C.vsGastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano
This is a cost decision by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, following a prior judgment (UPC CFI n. 802/2024) finding that Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano infringed patent EP3691454. The claimants sought reimbursement of €62,719.20 in litigation costs. The court determined that the cost application was timely filed and properly notified to both defendants, and awarded a total of €62,359.32, reducing the representatives' fees from €45,359.88 to €45,000 based on the proportionality principle and the limited complexity of the case.
Dyson Technology LimitedvsDreame International (Hongkong) Limited
Dyson Technology Limited filed a request to impose a penalty payment against Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited for alleged infringement of orders from the Court of Appeal and the Local Division Hamburg concerning European Patent EP3119235. During oral proceedings in a related case, the parties reached a settlement that included the withdrawal of the penalty request and an agreement not to seek cost reimbursement. The court permitted the withdrawal, confirmed that no cost decision was required, and set the value of the enforcement proceedings at EUR 100,000.
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.