Meril Italy v SWAT Medical (CFI, 8 January 2025)
| Date | 8 January 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_56782/2024 · ORD_59519/2024 |
| Parties | Meril 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.
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
- Practical point: a party that successfully resists an application for access to the file cannot, as a rule, recover its costs of that side application.
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
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
Parties
- claimantMeril GmbH45 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantMeril Italy srl19 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantMeril Life Science Private Limited2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 4 151 181mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Ocado Innovation v Autostore (CoA, 10 April 2024) cited in this record
- Bayerische Motoren Werke v ITCiCo Spain (CFI, 31 March 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 4 151 181 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.