Opens in a new tab

Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 14 August 2023)

Date14 August 2023
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication for provisional measures
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_249/2023
Registry referenceORD562104/2023 · UPC_CFI_249/2023
PartiesEdwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 14 August 2023 (UPC_CFI_249/2023, App_560315/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division, in Edwards Lifesciences’ provisional measures proceedings against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences based on EP 3 763 331, ruled that the application was deemed served on the second defendant on 7 August 2023 by alternative service (Rule 275.2 RoP). A CMS malfunction had prevented the defendants’ common counsel from accepting service for one of them.

Question

Can successful service on one defendant through the CMS (Rule 271.1(c) RoP) count as alternative service on another defendant represented by the same counsel, where only a technical incident prevented acceptance?

Decision

Counsel, who had filed a protective letter for both defendants and agreed in writing to electronic service on 7 August 2023, had known the content of the application since that date. The difficulties lay solely with the access codes generated by the CMS, and the defendants did not oppose the application (paragraphs 1 and 2). Rule 275.4 RoP does not stand in the way, as German law likewise cures defective service where the document was actually received (§ 189 ZPO) (paragraph 3). Service on the first defendant therefore counts as alternative service on the second (paragraph 4). The Registry was directed to issue a separate access code and record the date of service. Leave to appeal was refused, the application being unopposed (paragraph 6).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 102, 205(a), 209.1(a), 220.2, 271.1(c), 275.2, 275.3(c), 275.4, 331.1 and 333
Other provisions
German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), § 189.

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Application for a preliminary injunction, Order to preserve evidence (UPC).

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: The Launch Letter: How Generics and Biosimilars Should Write to Avoid UPC Urgency (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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_CFI_249/2023 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

  1. 14 August 2023 Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 14 August 2023) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_249/2023
  2. 28 August 2023 Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 28 August 2023) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_249/2023

    Une audience sur la demande de mesures provisoires est fixée au 10 octobre 2023, avec interprétation simultanée pour la formation, et les délais de réponse à l'opposition sont arrêtés.

  3. 19 December 2023 Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 December 2023) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_249/2023

    La procédure de mesures provisoires est éteinte par l'engagement de cessation des défenderesses, qui supportent l'intégralité des frais dans la limite de 200 000 euros. L'appel est autorisé.

  4. 10 January 2025 Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 10 January 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_249/2023

    Le juge rapporteur condamne Meril à rembourser 244 000 euros de frais à Edwards Lifesciences dans les 20 jours et rejette la demande d’intérêts, faute de base légale.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application for provisional measures
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La signification par le CMS à la première défenderesse vaut signification alternative à la seconde, réputée intervenue le 7 août 2023.
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

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 v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 15 February 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)
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.