Opens in a new tab

Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 December 2023)

Date19 December 2023
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication for provisional measures
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_249/2023
Registry referenceORD_577734/2023 · UPC_CFI_249/2023
PartiesMeril GmbH v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 an order of 19 December 2023 (UPC_CFI_249/2023, ACT_550921/2023, ORD_577734/2023), the Munich Local Division (M. Zigann, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur) found that Edwards Lifesciences Corporation’s application for provisional measures against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., based on EP 3 763 331, had become devoid of purpose following the respondents’ cease-and-desist undertaking of 25 September 2023, and ordered the respondents to bear all the costs, capped at EUR 200,000. Leave to appeal was granted, as the issue was decided for the first time.

Question

Do Rule 360 and Rule 118.5 RoP apply by analogy to provisional measures proceedings ended by the respondent’s undertaking, and who then bears the costs?

Decision

The Rules contain an unintended gap on this point: Rule 360 applies by analogy, as does Rule 118.5 for the costs decision, governed by Art. 69 UPCA (sections 2 and 3a). Disposal by undertaking is an exceptional circumstance. The reservation « without acknowledging a legal obligation » does not prevent the court from considering the respondents’ de facto position as losing party and the timing of the undertaking. The respondents could have given the undertaking before the warning letter deadline expired on 13 July 2023, which would have avoided the application. After a 107-page defence and preparation for the hearing, their late undertaking caused unnecessary costs within Art. 69(3) UPCA (section 3b). The value in dispute is set at EUR 1,500,000, the amount is left to cost-fixing proceedings under Rule 151 RoP.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 69(1) to (3) and Art. 73(2)(b)(ii)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 102.1, 118.5, 151, 156.2, 220.2, 354.4 and 360

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Application for a preliminary injunction, Order to preserve evidence (UPC).

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: The Launch Letter: How Generics and Biosimilars Should Write to Avoid UPC Urgency (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_249/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 14 August 2023 Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 14 August 2023) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_249/2023

    La signification par le CMS à la première défenderesse vaut signification alternative à la seconde, réputée intervenue le 7 août 2023.

  2. 28 August 2023 Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 28 August 2023) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_249/2023

    Une audience sur la demande de mesures provisoires est fixée au 10 octobre 2023, avec interprétation simultanée pour la formation, et les délais de réponse à l'opposition sont arrêtés.

  3. 19 December 2023 Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 December 2023) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_249/2023
  4. 10 January 2025 Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 10 January 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_249/2023

    Le juge rapporteur condamne Meril à rembourser 244 000 euros de frais à Edwards Lifesciences dans les 20 jours et rejette la demande d’intérêts, faute de base légale.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application for provisional measures
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La procédure de mesures provisoires est éteinte par l'engagement de cessation des défenderesses, qui supportent l'intégralité des frais dans la limite de 200 000 euros. L'appel est autorisé.
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 3 763 331Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 5 other decision(s): Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 4 October 2024) · Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 15 February 2024) · Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 18 January 2024) · Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 28 August 2023) · Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 14 August 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
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.