Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Italy (CFI, 13 November 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 13 November 2023 (UPC_CFI_255/2023, ACT_551308/2023, App_572915/2023), the judge-rapporteur of panel 2 of the Paris Central Division (P. Catallozzi) rejected the Preliminary objection of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, which argued that Meril Italy srl’s revocation action against EP 3 646 825 had to be brought before the Munich Local Division, where an infringement action was pending against Meril Life Sciences and Meril GmbH. He also rejected the request for security for costs.

Question

Is a separate subsidiary of the group sued for infringement the « same party » within Art. 33(4) UPCA, so that the central division lacks competence?

Decision

As the Agreement does not define a party, the question is one for national law, here Italian law, under which legal persons with separate personality are different parties, whatever their shareholding links (paragraphs 35 to 43). The CJEU case law on lis pendens does not apply, the Agreement having its own rules, and the exception to the central division’s competence for revocation is to be construed narrowly (paragraphs 44 to 55). The straw company argument fails for want of evidence of an arrangement shifting the effects of the action onto another entity (paragraphs 56 to 69). The risk of conflicting decisions is addressed by the Agreement’s tools (referral, stay), and multiple actions by linked companies are not abusive in themselves (paragraphs 70 to 84). Security for costs may be sought with the Preliminary objection, but share capital of EUR 10,000 and the lack of activity are not enough, given membership of the group (paragraphs 88 to 91).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a group company not sued before the local division may bring a revocation action before the central division, the proprietor must prove genuine interposition to obtain a transfer.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(2) to (6), Art. 46, Art. 47(6) and Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 48, 158, 295, 302, 303, 331 and 340

European Patent Convention

Art. 68

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 29

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.