Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 12 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 11 August 2026 under Rule 105.5 RoP following the interim conference (UPC_CFI_1160/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division organises the damages proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. and Meril Italy S.r.l. following the final decision of 4 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 669 828. He sets the oral hearing for 10 September 2026 and the value of the dispute at EUR 15 million, without ruling on the request to lay open books. The interest lies in the preliminary views expressed on non-infringing replacement products.

Question

How is the value of damages proceedings to be set, and which issues does the request to lay open books raise?

Decision

The value of the dispute follows the damages claim, which Edwards currently estimates at EUR 15 million, it may be revisited once damages have been calculated (section 8). The judge notes that the question of profits made with a non-infringing replacement product sold during the life of the patent has not yet been decided, and invites the parties to agree on whether UPC or national law applies. The scope of Rule 141(c) RoP, and the possible limit in Rule 141(b) RoP, are disputed (section 9). As a preliminary view, such profits may be attributable to the infringement, for example where the replacement product took the place of the infringing one in public tenders (section 11). Confidentiality arrangements must be prepared now, in a two-step approach, and use of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre is encouraged (sections 12 and 13).

Key points for practice

• The value of damages proceedings follows the amount claimed and may be adjusted once damages are calculated (section 8).
• Practical point: a patentee claiming profits made with a replacement product must establish the link with the infringement and specify the law governing that claim (sections 9 and 11).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 58, 68 and 69(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 105.5, 125, 126, 131, 141, 144.1, 190.1, 263.3 and 333

Case law cited

Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, Munich Local Division, 4 April 2025, Mannheim Local Division, 11 March 2025, UPC_CFI_162/2024

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.