Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 21 November 2024)
| Date | 21 November 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Appeal RoP220.2 |
| Registry reference | APL_50205/2024 · ORD_61000/2024 |
| Parties | MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, INTERLUX, UAB, SORMEDICA, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES C… |
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
In an order of 21 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_511/2024), the Court of Appeal set aside the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division’s refusal to stay Edwards Lifesciences’ infringement action against Meril (EP 3 769 722) pending the EPO opposition, and referred the case back to the same panel. The Court held that Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) do not require a final EPO decision to be expected rapidly: a rapid decision of the Opposition Division is enough.
Question
Does a stay of infringement proceedings pending an opposition require that a final EPO decision be expected rapidly?
Decision
Meril was entitled to rely on Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) for the first time on appeal, since Rule 222.2 covers requests, facts and evidence, not legal arguments (paragraphs 12 to 15). Rule 295(m) does not apply, and Rules 118.2(b) and 295(g) apply only once the case is ready for decision (paragraphs 16 to 18). Before that stage, it is enough that a rapid EPO decision is expected, even one open to appeal. The stay remains discretionary, taking account of the stage of both proceedings and the likelihood of revocation (paragraphs 19 to 22). As the Opposition Division was due to decide on 17 January 2025, the day after the UPC hearing, the first instance should have weighed the interests involved. The Court referred the case back and did not decide on costs (paragraphs 23 to 27).
Key points for practice
- A new legal basis for a request already made at first instance is admissible on appeal (paragraph 15).
- Besides a stay, the Court mentioned rescheduling the hearing or applying Rule 118.2(b) in the decision on the merits (paragraph 25).
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts. 33(10) and 73(4)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 118.2(b), 222.2, 295(a), 295(g) and 295(m)
- Case law cited
- Court of Appeal, 28 May 2024, Carrier v BITZER (UPC_CoA_22/2024).
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: UPC Court of Appeal.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.
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 LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED8 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSORMEDICA7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantUAB7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantINTERLUX5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantVAB-LOGISTIK6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantEDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Appeal RoP220.2
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La cour d’appel annule le refus de suspension et renvoie l’affaire : l’article 33, paragraphe 10, de l’Accord et la règle 295 a) exigent seulement qu’une décision rapide de la division d’opposition soit attendue, non une décision définitive.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 769 722mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CoA, 28 May 2024) cited in this record
- Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel (CoA, 19 August 2026) cites this decision
- Fujifilm v Kodak (CoA, UPC_CoA_474/2025, 13 July 2026) cites this decision
- Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 2 July 2026) cites this decision
- bioMérieux UK v Labrador Diagnostics (CoA, 17 February 2026) cites this decision
- Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 11 December 2024) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.