Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Lifesciences (CFI, 16 August 2024)

Date	16 August 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Nordic Baltic Regional Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_43606/2024 · ORD_44404/2024
Parties	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 order of 16 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_8/2023, ACT_459769/2023, ORD_44404/2024), the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division set the timetable for resuming Edwards Lifesciences’ infringement action on EP 2 628 464 against Meril Lifesciences and other defendants, together with the counterclaims for revocation. The proceedings had been stayed on 9 January 2024 pending the written decision of the EPO Technical Board of Appeal in T 308/23, which remitted the case to the Opposition Division for the patent to be maintained in amended form. The order is of interest for how proceedings are conducted after a stay, a matter the Rules of Procedure leave largely open.

Question

How does the written procedure resume once a stay pending EPO proceedings is lifted, and on what time limits?

Decision

Under Rule 296.3 RoP, time stops running during a stay and starts afresh once it ends. As the Rules say nothing further, the division has a wide discretion guided by procedural economy and flexibility. It orders a fresh written procedure with shortened time limits, without repeating preliminary objections or applications already decided. The claimant must lodge an amended Statement of Claim within 14 days (30 August 2024) and the defendants an amended Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation within 42 days (27 September 2024), rather than the 28 days proposed by the claimant or the two to three months sought by the defendants. The next step follows Rule 29(a) RoP. Amendments are to be filed by way of an application under Rule 263 RoP. No appeal lies against the order.

Key points for practice

Practical point: after a stay pending the EPO, the division may open a tight written round limited to the amended pleadings, with time limits well short of the ordinary ones.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 23, 25, 29, 30, 32, 263, 296.2 and 296.3

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantEdwards Lifesciences Corporation41 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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 application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division fixe une nouvelle phase écrite à délais raccourcis après la levée de la suspension : 14 jours pour le mémoire en demande modifié, 42 jours pour la défense et la demande reconventionnelle modifiées.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 628 464 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

In(k)control v Esko-Graphics (CFI, 15 September 2026) cites this decision

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 628 464`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Lifesciences (CFI, 21 July 2025) · Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Lifesciences (CFI, 18 September 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.