Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, ORD_16663/2024, 20 August 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 20 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_380/2023, ACT_582093/2023, ORD_16663/2024), the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (Johansson, Härmand, Bessaud, Wilhelm) dismissed the request of Meril Life Sciences and five other defendants to stay the infringement action on EP 3 769 722 brought by Edwards Lifesciences pending the decision of the EPO Opposition Division. Leave to appeal was granted.

Question

Should the division stay proceedings during an EPO opposition, on the basis of Rule 118.2(b) RoP, Art. 33(10) UPCA or Rule 295 RoP?

Decision

No. Rule 118.2(b) RoP, located in the chapter on the oral procedure, cannot found a stay during the written procedure (paragraphs 4 to 6). The primary provisions are Art. 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP, which require that a rapid EPO decision be expected (paragraph 7). That is not so: the opposition was filed on 7 March 2024 and the Opposition Division’s decision would probably be appealed, adding 18 to 24 months (paragraph 8). Rule 295(m) RoP must respect those specific provisions and the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (paragraphs 9 to 11). As a rule, the division will not stay where a final EPO decision is not expected rapidly, even if invalidity is highly likely (paragraph 12), all the more so as the UPC will itself decide the counterclaims for revocation (paragraph 13). The auxiliary request under Art. 33(3) UPCA is dismissed, as no bifurcation is envisaged (paragraph 16).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a recent EPO opposition is not enough to obtain a stay, the defendant must show that a final decision can be expected rapidly.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 33(3) and (10) and 73(2)(b)(ii)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 37, 118.2(b), 220.2, 224.1(b) and 295

Case law cited

Carrier v BITZER Electronics, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2024

Related decisions

• Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences, 20 August 2024, order of the same day dismissing the request for security for costs.

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.