Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 December 2023)
| Date | 19 December 2023 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application for provisional measures |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_249/2023 |
| Registry reference | ORD_577734/2023 · UPC_CFI_249/2023 |
| Parties | Meril GmbH v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 14 August 2023 : Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 14 August 2023) ORD562104/2023 · UPC_CFI_249/2023
- 28 August 2023 : Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 28 August 2023) ORD_567601/2023 · UPC_CFI_249/2023
- 10 January 2025 : Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 10 January 2025) App_3187/2024 · ORD_4627/2024 · UPC_CFI_249/2023
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 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
- Practical point: a respondent that gives a cease-and-desist undertaking only after a full defence risks bearing all the costs of the provisional measures proceedings.
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
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.
Parties
- defendantEdwards Lifesciences Corporation41 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantMeril GmbH45 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 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.
- 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.
- 19 December 2023 Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 December 2023) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_249/2023
- 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
EP 3 763 331mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 10 January 2025) cited in this record
- Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 28 August 2023) cited in this record
- Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 14 August 2023) cited in this record
- AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CFI, ACT_551054/2023, 29 April 2026) cites this decision
- Neurocrine Biosciences v Spruce Biosciences (CFI, 13 March 2026) cites this decision
- Dolby International v Roku (CFI, 19 May 2025) cites this decision
- Sun Patent Trust v Roku (CFI, 19 May 2025) cites this decision
- Stäubli TecSystems v Defendants (anonymised) (CFI, 16 May 2024) cites this decision
- 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, ORD_598272/2023, 30 April 2024) cites this decision
- Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 18 January 2024) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 763 331 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked 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.