Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 29 September 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 29 September 2023 (ORD_576853/2023, UPC_CFI_15/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division deferred to the main proceedings the preliminary objection lodged by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences in Edwards Lifesciences’ infringement action on EP 3 646 825, declined to stay the proceedings for the time being, dismissed the application for security for costs and requested the assignment of a technically qualified judge. The judge-rapporteur already gives his view on jurisdiction over acts before 1 June 2023.

Question

Should the jurisdictional challenges, the request for a stay and a CJEU referral, and the application for security for costs against a US-based claimant be decided at this stage?

Decision

The objection, wrongly filed in the statement of defence workflow, was not held inadmissible given that the system was new (Rule 4.1 RoP). The concern about extension to future ratifying states was hypothetical. The argument excluding acts before 1 June 2023 was considered legally wrong in light of Arts 3(c) and 32(1)(a) UPCA. Since the claim targets the teaching of the patent as a whole, the Munich division has competence over Meril GmbH, based in Bonn, and over its Indian parent under the second sentence of Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA, given their commercial relationship. A stay and a referral are not among the grounds listed in Rule 19.1 RoP and will be reconsidered in the main proceedings. Security for costs (Art. 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158.1 RoP) requires a showing of financial weakness or particular difficulty of enforcement. Mere uncertainty about recognition in the United States is not enough.

Key points for practice

• A claimant’s seat outside the EU does not on its own justify security for costs.
• Practical point: a preliminary objection must be filed in its own electronic workflow, separate from the statement of defence.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 3(c), 8(5), 32(1)(a), 33(1)(b) and 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 4.1, 19.1, 20.2 and 158.1

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.