Meril v SWAT Medical (CoA, 12 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 12 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_635/2024), the Court of Appeal, hearing Meril GmbH’s appeal against the Paris Central Division’s order of 14 October 2024 granting access to the file under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in the counterclaim for revocation between Meril and Edwards Lifesciences, held that the applicants for access must themselves be represented. A European Patent Attorney and UPC representative who is a party in his own right cannot represent himself, nor can he represent SWAT Medical, whose board he chairs. The Court exceptionally gave them fourteen days to appoint a representative and lodge a Statement of response.

Question

May a professional entitled to act before the UPC represent himself when he is a party, and represent a company in which he holds a high-level management position?

Decision

Representation is an admissibility requirement grounded in due process which the Court may raise of its own motion at any time. Applicants under Rule 262.1(b) RoP are not exempt, following Ocado, and neither are lawyers or European Patent Attorneys who are parties themselves. References to the firm KIPA AB in letterheads are not enough, since none of its practitioners is named as acting for the individual. Following Suinno v Microsoft, a manager with extensive powers cannot represent the legal person, even if qualified. As the point was unsettled when the appeal was lodged, fourteen days are allowed, failing which a reasoned decision under Rule 235.3 RoP may follow.

Key points for practice

• A third party seeking access to the file must appoint a separate representative, even if it is itself an authorised representative.
• A parallel order of the same day deals with Meril Life Sciences’ appeal (UPC_CoA_636/2024).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 48

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.1, 222.2, 226, 235.3, 236.1 and 262.1(b)

Case law cited

Ocado, Court of Appeal, 8 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023), Suinno v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 11 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_563/2024).

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.