Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 20 December 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 20 December 2024 following the interim conference (UPC_CFI_501/2023), the Munich Local Division, acting through its judge-rapporteur, allowed Edwards Lifesciences to extend its infringement action on EP 3 669 828 to Romania and allowed the Meril companies to extend their counterclaim for revocation accordingly. More significantly, it held that the claimant’s specification of the information the defendants are to provide is not an amendment of the case under Rule 263 but falls under Rule 13. The order also set the value of the dispute at €16 million and organised the oral hearing of 11 February 2025.

Question

Do adding a country and specifying the content of a request for information require leave under Rule 263, and on what basis?

Decision

Not every new argument amounts to an amendment of the case: there is one only where the nature or scope of the dispute changes. Changes confined to how information is to be provided fall under Rule 13, read with recital 7 of the preamble requiring parties to present their case as early as possible. Having been filed well before the hearing, they were admitted, whether the information is actually owed being left open. As Romania was mentioned in neither the statement of claim nor the counterclaim, and both parties now wished to include it, leave was granted on both sides. The Division also invited the claimant to clarify the order in which its auxiliary requests to amend the patent, which split into two lines, should be considered, since the court cannot choose on the patentee’s behalf. Requests to hear party experts and to appoint a court expert were rejected for now.

Key points for practice

• A clarification filed well before the hearing may fall outside Rule 263 if it changes neither the nature nor the scope of the dispute.
• Auxiliary requests to amend arranged in parallel lines must be ranked by the patentee itself.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 13, 105.5 and 263, recital 7 of the preamble

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, order of 21 November 2024, UPC_CoA_456/2024, Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz, Munich Local Division, 2 December 2024

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.