Opens in a new tab

Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 17 March 2025)

Date17 March 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication RoP262A
Registry referenceApp_66581/2024 · ORD_68757/2024
PartiesMeril 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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
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

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 3 646 825
A 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 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.