Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, ORD_3758/2025, 23 January 2025)

Date	23 January 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_2875/2025 · ORD_3758/2025
Parties	Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 23 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_815/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division dismissed Meril’s application for a partial stay of the cost proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences (EP 3 646 825) pending the Court of Appeal’s decision on Meril’s appeal. The parties had agreed to continue the proceedings on representation costs and stay them for the rest, but neither asked for a full stay, which the judge had said he would order on a joint request. The order clarifies the scope of Rule 295(d).

Question

May the Court, on the parties’ joint request, stay cost proceedings in part only?

Decision

No. Rule 295(d) allows a stay at the parties’ joint request but does not provide for a partial stay, and a full stay had not been requested by both parties. The judge saw no advantage in using his case-management powers to achieve a partial stay in practice, which would create more problems than it would solve. The application was dismissed.

Key points for practice

Parties wishing to freeze cost proceedings pending appeal should jointly request a full stay. An agreement to stay only certain items does not bind the Court.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 295(d) and 301.1

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantMeril Gmbhnormalised name: Meril GmbH45 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantMeril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.32 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de sursis partiel de Meril est rejetée, la règle 295(d) ne permettant qu'un sursis total sur demande conjointe.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 646 825 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, ORD_3764/2025, 23 January 2025) cites this decision
Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, ORD_3866/2025, 23 January 2025) cites this decision
Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, ORD_3774/2025, 23 January 2025) cites this decision

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 646 825` A system comprising a prosthetic valve and a delivery catheter recorded proprietor: Edwards Lifesciences Corp	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 32 other decision(s): Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, 15 November 2024) · Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 July 2024) · Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 July 2024) · Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 25 November 2025) · Edwards Lifesciences v Sintec (CFI, 5 September 2025) · Meril Italy v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025) · Meril v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025) · Meril Life Sciences v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.