Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, UPC_CFI_1160/2026, 28 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 1 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 28 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_1160/2026), the Munich Local Division, sitting as a full panel, rules on Edwards Lifesciences’ request to lay open books within its application for the determination of damages following the final decision of 4 April 2025 finding that Meril’s Myval transcatheter heart valves infringed EP 3 669 828 B2. It orders Meril to provide, within twelve weeks, information on sales, rebates, variable and fixed costs, accounts, intercompany flows and licences relating to the infringing devices and their accessories, and to other devices substituted in tenders in which Meril had taken part with an infringing product. It rejects, however, the “springboard” damages theory and grants leave to appeal, as this is the first order of its kind.

Facts and procedure

By decision of 4 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_501/2023), the Munich Local Division held that Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences and Meril Italy infringed Edwards’ EP 3 669 828 B2 with the Myval valve and Myval system and were jointly and severally liable for damages since 5 May 2021. That decision was not appealed.

On 2 April 2026, Edwards filed an application for the determination of damages including a request to lay open books. The parties agreed on confidentiality, the suspensive effect of any appeal and the time limit for the second stage. Edwards narrowed some requests, which the division treats as an unconditional partial withdrawal permitted under Rule 263.3 RoP.

Question

What accounting information can the infringer be ordered to disclose under Rule 141 RoP, in particular for accessories, non-infringing replacement devices and so-called “springboard” profits?

Decision

Laying open books is an optional but integral part of the application for the determination of damages and is subject to proportionality (Article 42 UPCA, Articles 10(3) and 13(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC): it is refused where the information clearly cannot be used to calculate damages. The list in Rule 141(c) RoP is not exhaustive.

The infringer’s profits cover ancillary transactions causally linked to the infringement and sufficiently connected to its subject-matter, such as sales of consumables or accessories designed for the infringing device; Meril did not dispute this for the Myval valve accessories.

Taking part in a tender with an infringing device is an offer under Article 25(a) UPCA: profits from performing the contract with a non-infringing replacement device may be taken into account.

By contrast, using infringing devices in clinical trials, to obtain CE marking or to build a distribution network does not establish a sufficient link with later sales of non-infringing devices: the division is not inclined to grant “springboard” damages. The German and French case law relied on does not lead to a different outcome.

For periods before the UPCA entered into force, national law applies, but a party relying on a difference must plead and prove it (Court of Appeal, 17 August 2026, UPC_CoA_365/2025 and UPC_CoA_367/2025).

No costs order is made at this stage; leave to appeal is granted, at Meril’s request, as this is the first order applying these rules.

Key points for practice

• Rule 141 RoP targets financial data (“how much?”) and differs from the production of evidence under Rule 191 RoP (“what happened?”).
• Accessories and consumables designed for the infringing device fall within the infringer’s profits.
• Sales of a non-infringing replacement product may count where they perform a contract won with an infringing offer.
• The division is not inclined to grant “springboard” damages based on the commercial head start obtained through infringement.

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement

Articles 20, 25, 42 and 68

Rules of Procedure

Rules 125, 126, 131.1(c), 141, 144, 191 and 263.3

Directive 2004/48/EC

Directive 2004/48/EC, Articles 10(3) and 13(1)

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 17 August 2026, UPC_CoA_365/2025 and UPC_CoA_367/2025; Federal Court of Justice, 14 November 2023, X ZR 30/21 (Polsterumarbeitungsmaschine); Federal Court of Justice, GRUR 1962, 509 (Dia-Rähmchen II).

Related decisions

• Munich Local Division, 4 April 2025, UPC_CFI_501/2023, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril: decision on the merits.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 1 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.