Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, ORD_60760/2024, 15 November 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 15 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_15/2023, ACT_459987/2023), the Munich Local Division rejected the requests of Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences, defendants to Edwards Lifesciences’ infringement action on EP 3 646 825, for the Division to ask the European Commission about a possible competition investigation into Edwards and for leave to file further pleadings or reopen the hearing. Made after the oral hearing of 24 September 2024, the requests could not delay the decision announced for the very day of the order.

Question

Can a party, after the written procedure has closed and the oral hearing has taken place, have the Division seek information from the European Commission and reopen the proceedings?

Decision

No. The Court may disregard steps taken out of time (Rule 9.2 RoP), and further written pleadings may be allowed only on a reasoned request lodged before the judge-rapporteur closes the written procedure (Rule 36 RoP). The written procedure, the interim procedure and the oral hearing were over, with no leave for post-hearing submissions (II). Granting the requests would have jeopardised the date set for the decision (III). On substance, when asked at the hearing, Edwards had stated that the Commission was still at a fact-finding stage with no formal investigation opened, which Meril did not dispute (IV).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an argument based on parallel competition proceedings must be substantiated and raised before the written procedure closes, after the hearing, the Division protects the decision date.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 36, 220.2 and 224.1(b)

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.