Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 17 March 2025)
| Date | 17 March 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Registry reference | App_66581/2024 · ORD_68757/2024 |
| Parties | Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation |
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 order of 17 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_815/2024, ORD_13125/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (M. Zigann), dealing with Edwards Lifesciences’ application for a cost decision (Rule 151) against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences in the dispute over EP 3 646 825, declined to restrict Meril’s access to the amounts of costs incurred but shielded them from the public.
Question
Can the lawyers’ fees and expenses set out in an application for a cost decision be protected against the opposing party and against the public?
Decision
Once leave to amend had been granted (Rule 263.3), Edwards no longer sought any effective restriction against Meril, which obtains unrestricted access. The remainder of the Rule 262A request is rejected, as is Meril’s mirror application (grounds 1, 2 and 5). The judge nonetheless ruled, by way of exception and without waiting for a third-party request under Rule 262.3, on protection against the public (ground 3). The threshold there is lower than under Rule 262A, since only the general interest in information is at stake. While the public has an understandable interest in knowing who bears costs and to what extent, fees are individually negotiated, so knowing them says nothing reliable about the cost of other proceedings. Edwards’ interest in keeping its fees confidential prevails, and the public’s oversight is served by the costs decision itself. Meril and its representatives may not disclose the information to third parties.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a party seeking reimbursement of its costs cannot, as a rule, hide the amounts from its opponent, but may keep them out of public view.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts. 45 and 58
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 102.2, 151, 262, 262A, 263.3 and 333
- Case law cited
- CEAD v BEGO Medical, Paris Central Division, 30 July 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: Confidentiality club.
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
- defendantEdwards Lifesciences Corporation41 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantMeril Gmbh45 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantMeril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.32 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application RoP262A
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les montants de frais d'Edwards sont accessibles sans restriction à Meril mais protégés à l'égard du public. Les demandes fondées sur la règle 262A sont rejetées pour le surplus.
- 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 3 646 825mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- CEAD v BEGO Medical (CFI, 30 July 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 646 825A system comprising a prosthetic valve and a delivery catheter recorded proprietor: Edwards Lifesciences Corp | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 32 other decision(s): Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, 15 November 2024) · Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 July 2024) · Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 July 2024) · Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 25 November 2025) · Edwards Lifesciences v Sintec (CFI, 5 September 2025) · Meril Italy v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025) · Meril v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025) · Meril Life Sciences v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.