Edwards Lifesciences v Sintec (CFI, 5 September 2025)

Date	5 September 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Milan (IT) Local Division
Type of action	Application Rop 365
Registry reference	App_30486/2025 · ORD_31275/2025
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 a decision of 5 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_202/2025, App_30486/2025), the Milan Local Division confirmed the settlement reached between Edwards Lifesciences and Sintec and Value Med in provisional measures proceedings based on European patent EP 3 646 825, and ordered only the redacted version to be entered on the register. It dismissed Edwards’ request for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees, EUR 6,600: the reimbursement under Rule 370.9(c)(i) does not apply to applications for provisional measures. The settlement followed an invitation by the judge-rapporteur to negotiate, with suggested terms (Rule 332).

Question

Does a settlement reached in provisional measures proceedings give rise to the partial reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(c)?

Decision

No. The settlement was confirmed under Art. 79 UPCA and Rule 365.1, with parts kept confidential (Rule 365.2), the parties having agreed on costs between themselves (Rule 365.4). But Rule 370.9(c)(i) does not apply, directly or by analogy, to applications for provisional measures: it refers only to actions, the procedural stages it describes do not exist in provisional proceedings (there is no interim procedure and an oral hearing does not always take place), and the court fees for an application under Rule 206 are already considerably lower. The division thus followed the Mannheim Local Division’s order of 28 August 2025.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a settlement in provisional proceedings does not trigger the 60% reimbursement of court fees, this should be factored into the negotiation.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 73(1) and Art. 79
Rules of Procedure: Rules 11.2, 150 to 156, 206, 220.1(a), 224.1(a), 332, 365, 370.9(c) and 370.11
Case law cited: Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou), Mannheim Local Division, 28 August 2025

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: Application Rop 365
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La transaction est confirmée et inscrite au registre en version occultée. La demande de remboursement de 60 % des frais de justice est rejetée, la règle 370.9(c)(i) ne s'appliquant pas aux mesures provisoires.
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 3 646 825 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou) (CFI, 28 August 2025) cited in this record

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 3 646 825` A system comprising a prosthetic valve and a delivery catheter recorded proprietor: Edwards Lifesciences Corp	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 32 other decision(s): Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, 15 November 2024) · Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 July 2024) · Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 July 2024) · Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 25 November 2025) · Meril Italy v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025) · Meril v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025) · Meril Life Sciences v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025) · Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 18 April 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) 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.