Opens in a new tab

Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 15 February 2024)

Date15 February 2024
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionGeneric Order
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_2/2024
Registry referenceORD_6625/2024 · UPC_CoA_2/2024
PartiesMeril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 15 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_2/2024, APL_83/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal set at EUR 11,000 the fee payable for Meril’s appeal against the costs decision of the Munich Local Division of 19 December 2023, made when closing provisional measures proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences (EP 3 763 331) which had become devoid of purpose. Meril, which had paid only EUR 1,500 under Rule 220.2 RoP, must pay the balance of EUR 9,500 within 14 days. The order fills a gap in the table of court fees for appeals against costs decisions.

Question

Which appeal fee is payable where an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP is directed only at the costs decision made on closure of provisional measures proceedings?

Decision

In line with the Court of Appeal’s order of 18 January 2024, the costs decision is a final decision within Rule 220.1(a) RoP, by application of Rule 360 RoP (paragraph 2). As the fee table provides no specific fee for this situation and is based on the type of claim decided at first instance, the applicable fee is that for appeals against orders on provisional measures (Rule 220.1(c) RoP and Article 62 UPCA), namely EUR 11,000, since the proceedings were closed as provisional measures proceedings (paragraph 3). That the appeal concerns only costs makes no difference, all the more so as the appellants ask the Court to assess whether the application for provisional measures was well founded (paragraph 4). The balance is EUR 9,500 (paragraph 5).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 62
Rules of Procedure
Rules 220.1, 220.2 and 360
Case law cited
Court of Appeal, 18 January 2024, UPC_CoA_4/2024

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CoA_2/2024 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La taxe due pour l'appel de la décision sur les frais clôturant une procédure de mesures provisoires est de 11 000 euros, Meril doit payer le solde de 9 500 euros dans les quatorze jours.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 763 331Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 5 other decision(s): Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 4 October 2024) · Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 18 January 2024) · Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 December 2023) · Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 28 August 2023) · Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 14 August 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.