Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 28 February 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 27 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_255/2023, ACT_551308/2023, App_7184/2024), panel 2 of the Paris Central Division (P. Catallozzi, T. Zhilova and S. Wilhelm) refused Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, proprietor of EP 3 646 825, leave to replace its application to amend the patent with a new main request and 41 auxiliary requests, in the revocation action brought by Meril Italy srl. The order frames subsequent requests to amend.

Question

Is the replacement of an application to amend the patent filed in time governed by Rule 263 or by Rule 30.2 RoP, and on what conditions may such a subsequent request be admitted?

Decision

Replacing the amendments does not pertain to a claim, so Rule 263 does not apply (paragraph 23), the situation falls under Rule 50.2, which refers to Rule 30.2 (paragraphs 24 to 27). The Court weighs efficiency and the proprietor’s interest against the risk of delay and the right of defence. The change must be justified (paragraphs 29 to 33). Neither consistency with the counterclaims pending before the Munich Local Division, which rest on other grounds and for which Art. 33(3) UPCA and Rule 295(m) provide other tools (paragraphs 37 to 41), nor procedural economy (paragraphs 42 to 44), nor Rule 30.3 (paragraphs 45 and 46) justified the replacement. The action will be decided without the amendments of 22 January 2024, although the parties may still agree on a new set (paragraphs 48 and 49). The requests for a hearing (Rule 264), for joint hearing with the Munich proceedings (Rule 340.1) and for leave to appeal were rejected (paragraphs 47 and 51 to 53).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: the proprietor should settle its auxiliary requests in the defence to revocation, replacing them later requires a specific justification, which consistency with other proceedings alone does not provide.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 30.2, 30.3, 50.2, 263.1, 264.1, 295(m), 331.2 and 340.1

European Patent Convention

Art. 84 and Art. 123(2) and (3)

Case law cited

Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Italy, Paris Central Division, 13 November 2023, ITCiCo Spain, Paris Central Division, 9 February 2024, order of the judge-rapporteur, Paris Central Division, 21 December 2023 (UPC_CFI_255/2023)

Related decisions

• Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences, 27 February 2024, order of the same day refusing a further exchange of written pleadings.

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.