Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 25 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In its decision of 25 November 2025, the Court of Appeal rules on all the appeals between the Meril companies and Edwards Lifesciences concerning EP 3 646 825 (transcatheter prosthetic heart valve with a frame of hexagonal cells). It upholds the Central Division’s competence, the admission of the third application to amend, the revocation of the main request and auxiliary request I and the maintenance of the patent under auxiliary request II, and then the finding by the Munich Local Division that the Myval Octacor valve infringes. It amends the injunction only for XL valves, in the interest of patients, and reduces the interim payment to EUR 363,000. The decision sets the UPC test for inventive step and lays down principles on permanent injunctions, corrective measures and interim costs awards.

Facts and procedure

Meril Italy brought a revocation action before the Central Division. Edwards sued Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences for infringement before the Munich Local Division, and their counterclaims for revocation were referred to the Central Division. The latter maintained the patent under auxiliary request II on 19 July 2024, splitting costs 60/40 (paragraph 16). On 15 November 2024, the Munich Local Division found infringement for sixteen States, excluding Romania, with an injunction, corrective measures, publication and an interim payment of EUR 663,000 (paragraphs 20 and 22). All these decisions were appealed (UPC_CoA_464/2024 and joined proceedings).

The applicable law

The Central Division’s competence turns on Art. 33(4) UPCA, validity on Arts 123(2), 84, 54 and 56 EPC. Injunctions and corrective measures rest on Arts 63 and 64 UPCA, which implement Arts 10 and 11 of Directive 2004/48, subject to the proportionality required by its Art. 3 (paragraphs 185 to 190). Interim costs awards fall under Art. 69(1) UPCA and Rule 150.2 RoP (paragraph 202).

Question

What test does the UPC apply to inventive step, and to what extent can the interests of patients limit an injunction and corrective measures?

Decision

Separate subsidiaries are « the same parties » under Art. 33(4) UPCA only if their interests are so identical that a judgment against one would be res judicata against the other. The Central Division had competence (paragraphs 27 to 32). Added matter is confirmed for the main request and auxiliary request I (paragraphs 76 to 89). On inventive step, the objective problem is derived from the claim as a whole without pointers to the solution, and the invention is obvious if the skilled person, from a realistic starting point, would, not merely could, have arrived at it (paragraphs 129 to 136). Neither Levi, nor its combinations with stents, nor Alon, Benichou or Dimatteo prompt a frame made entirely of hexagonal cells (paragraphs 145 to 174).

The disputed part of the Myval Octacor is a side strut of a hexagonal cell, and a less than optimal implementation is still covered (paragraphs 177 to 183). Injunctions and corrective measures are the rule unless disproportionate. Patients’ interests may justify an exception where the product is the only available treatment or notably improves care, which is not shown for the intermediate sizes (paragraphs 187 to 193). For XL valves, availability cannot depend on Edwards’ portal: a physician’s notification that they are the only treatment option suffices (paragraphs 196 and 197). Publication is upheld (paragraphs 199 and 200). The interim costs award is capped at 50% of the ceiling, EUR 300,000, plus the court fee of EUR 63,000 (paragraphs 202 to 204). The late addition of Romania is refused under Rule 263.2 RoP (paragraphs 215 to 219). Appeal costs are split 60/40 for revocation and 16/17 to 1/17 for infringement, the value of each action remains EUR 8,000,000 (paragraphs 222 to 224).

Key points for practice

• The Court sets a UPC-specific inventive step test: the question is whether the skilled person would have arrived at the solution, from each realistic starting point (paragraphs 131 to 136).
• A permanent injunction and corrective measures may only be refused for special reasons, in particular proportionality or a duly established interest of patients (paragraphs 187 to 191).
• An interim costs award does not in principle exceed 50% of the ceiling for recoverable costs (paragraph 203).
• Practical point: an injunction request must list the States concerned, and adding a newly acceding State must be sought without waiting for the hearing (paragraphs 214 to 218).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 33(3) and (4), 54, 56(1), 63(1), 64, 65(1), 68, 69, 76(2), 77(1), 80 and 89(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 25.1, 30.2, 44, 49.2, 50.2, 118.2, 118.8, 119, 150.2, 152.2, 222.2, 263.2 and 350

European Patent Convention

Art. 56, 69, 76(1), 84, 123(2) and 138(1)(c)

Other provisions

Directive 2004/48/EC, Arts 3, 10 and 11, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, Art. 29

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Expert v Seoul Viosys, Court of Appeal, 2 October 2025, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2025, UPC_CoA_402/2024, Fives v REEL, Court of Appeal, 16 January 2025, Syngenta v Sumi Agro, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2024), XSYS v Esko, Court of Appeal, 2 June 2025 (UPC_CoA_156/2025), Philips v Belkin, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, CJEU, Huawei v ZTE, 16 July 2015, C-170/13.

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.