Opens in a new tab

Meril Italy v SWAT Medical (CFI, 8 January 2025)

Date8 January 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_56782/2024 · ORD_59519/2024
PartiesMeril Italy srl, Meril Life Science Private Limited, Meril GmbH

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 8 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_189/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division (Judge Catallozzi) dismissed the application by Meril Italy, Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences for an order that SWAT Medical pay EUR 15,000 in costs for the access to pleadings and evidence proceedings it had brought and lost, in the revocation action concerning EP 4 151 181. The order rules out any costs decision in register access proceedings.

Question

Can a costs decision be made at the end of proceedings on an application for access to written pleadings and evidence?

Decision

The pleading filed on 3 December 2024 without leave was disregarded (paragraph 7). The admissibility objection failed: the application expressly relied on Rule 150, a wrong legal basis does not prevent its examination and the use of the wrong CMS workflow caused no prejudice (paragraphs 9 to 12). On the merits, costs follow a decision on the merits, meaning one that ends litigation with res judicata effect between opposing parties (paragraphs 13 and 14). Register access proceedings, even when they become adversarial, serve transparency and the public interest. The Court’s role there is primarily administrative and has no res judicata effect (paragraph 15). Absent a decision on the merits, the prerequisite for a costs decision was missing (paragraph 16).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 69
Rules of Procedure
Rules 4.1, 9, 105.5, 150, 156, 158 and 211.1(d)
Case law cited
Paris Central Division, 27 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_164/2024), Paris Central Division, 2 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_484/2023), Vienna, 12 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_33/2024), Ocado Innovation v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023)

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

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)
Le juge rapporteur rejette la demande de frais, la procédure d'accès au registre n'aboutissant pas à une décision au fond susceptible de fonder une décision sur les frais.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 4 151 181Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 20 October 2025) · Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, 8 October 2024) · Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 23 September 2024) · Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 17 September 2024)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.