Opens in a new tab

Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 21 November 2024)

Date21 November 2024
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal RoP220.2
Registry referenceAPL_50205/2024 · ORD_61000/2024
PartiesMERIL 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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
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

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 3 769 722
Low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valve
recorded proprietor: Edwards Lifesciences Corp
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, 21 July 2025) · Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, 12 May 2026) · EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES v MERIL LIFE SCIENCES (CFI, 5 December 2025) · Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, 2 September 2025) · Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, 21 January 2025) · Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 11 December 2024) · EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES v MERIL LIFE SCIENCES (CFI, 10 December 2024) · Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, ORD_14940/2024, 20 Au
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.