Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, 2 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 2 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_380/2023), the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division dismissed the requests for rectification filed by Meril Life Sciences and five other defendants against the decision on the merits of 21 July 2025 in favour of Edwards Lifesciences (EP 3 769 722). The defendants argued that the decision had omitted, by an obvious slip, to order Edwards to bear 25% of their costs in the revocation counterclaim. The division found that this outcome was the intended consequence of the method of apportionment chosen for partial success.

Question

Does a decision ordering the defendants to reimburse 75% of the patentee’s costs in the counterclaim proceedings, without ordering the patentee to pay anything, contain an obvious slip that can be rectified under Rule 353?

Decision

No. Art. 69(1) UPCA makes the unsuccessful party bear the successful party’s reasonable and proportionate costs, without saying who bears the unsuccessful party’s own costs, which it normally keeps (paragraph 7). Where a party succeeds only in part, Art. 69(2) allows equitable apportionment or an order that each party bear its own costs (paragraph 8). The division chose to award Edwards 100% of its costs in the infringement action and 75% in the counterclaim, with no deduction for the defendants’ costs. Edwards thus bears 25% of its own counterclaim costs and the defendants all of theirs, which neither the Agreement nor the Rules prohibit (paragraph 9). The order may only be appealed together with the decision on the merits (Rule 220.2).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party challenging the costs apportionment in a decision on the merits must appeal, rectification cannot be used to reopen a choice of method.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(1) to (3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.2 and 353

Case law cited

No UPC decision is cited in the order itself.

Related decisions

• Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences, 21 July 2025, decision on the merits whose rectification was sought.

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.