Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, ORD_56918/2024, 15 November 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 15 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_15/2023, ACT_459987/2023, ORD_56918/2024), the Munich Local Division (Judges Zigann, presiding and rapporteur, Kokke, Pichlmaier and technically qualified judge Wilhelm), in Edwards Lifesciences’ action for infringement of EP 3 646 825 against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences, rejected the defendants’ request, filed on 16 October 2024 after the hearing of 24 September, that the Court ask the European Commission about possible abuse of dominance investigations (Art. 102 TFEU) concerning the claimant, and that they be allowed to file further pleadings or have the hearing reopened. The order confirms that once the proceedings have closed, further pleadings are in principle ruled out.

Question

Can a party, after the written procedure, the interim procedure and the oral hearing have closed, obtain an inquiry addressed to the Commission and leave to file further pleadings?

Decision

The Court may disregard late steps and arguments (Rule 9.2), and further pleadings require a reasoned request before the judge-rapporteur closes the written procedure (Rule 36). The written and interim procedures and the hearing had ended, and no post-hearing submissions had been allowed. The request therefore fell outside any open procedural stage. Granting it would have jeopardised the decision date set for 15 November 2024. Moreover, the Court had already asked for an update at the hearing. The claimant had confirmed that nothing had changed and that the Commission had opened no formal investigation, and the defendants alleged no new fact.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: competition law matters that may bear on the case must be raised and documented before the hearing closes, a late request will be disregarded.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 52(1) and 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 36, 102.1, 220.2 and 224.1(b)

Case law cited

Relied on by the claimant: NanoString v President and Fellows of Harvard College, Munich Central Division, 25 July 2024, Carrier v BITZER Electronics, Court of Appeal, 28 May 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.