Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, 21 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 21 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_380/2023, EP 3 769 722), the judge-rapporteur of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (Judge Johansson) closed, following their withdrawal, seven public access applications concerning the file in Edwards Lifesciences’ infringement action against Meril Life Sciences and others, and dismissed Meril Life Sciences’ request that the access applicant, whose name does not appear in the published version, reimburse EUR 17,168.70 in legal fees. The order rules out a costs order against a member of the public in Rule 262.1(b) proceedings.

Question

May a member of the public who withdraws an application for access to the file be ordered to reimburse the costs incurred by the parties consulted under Rule 262.1(b)?

Decision

The withdrawal, which also covered the request to add a co-applicant, led to closure. On costs, Art. 69(1) UPCA, based on Directive 2004/48, is not meant to apply to public access requests: no ceiling for recoverable costs has been set for them, and it is not for the judge-rapporteur to set their value (Rule 152.3). Rule 262.1(b) merely provides for consulting the parties to the main proceedings, who do not become parties to the access proceedings. Even if Rule 265 applied, its reference to costs is only a reminder. Neither the Court of Appeal’s order in UPC_CoA_404/2023, which made no costs order, nor the order of 18 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_8/2023), which gives no legal basis, provides one. Leave to appeal was granted.

Key points for practice

• For want of a legal basis, a member of the public seeking access to the file faces no costs order in favour of the parties consulted.
• Practical point: a party opposing an access request should expect to bear the cost of its comments, subject to any appeal now permitted.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(1) and Art. 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 152.3, 156, 220.2, 224.1(b), 262.1(b), 262.2 and 265

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 14

Case law cited

Ocado Innovation, Court of Appeal, 8 February 2024, Nordic-Baltic Regional Division, 18 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_8/2023)

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.