Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 15 February 2024)
| Date | 15 February 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Generic Order |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_2/2024 |
| Registry reference | ORD_6625/2024 · UPC_CoA_2/2024 |
| Parties | Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. 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 procedural order of 15 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_2/2024, APL_83/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal set at EUR 11,000 the fee payable for Meril’s appeal against the costs decision of the Munich Local Division of 19 December 2023, made when closing provisional measures proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences (EP 3 763 331) which had become devoid of purpose. Meril, which had paid only EUR 1,500 under Rule 220.2 RoP, must pay the balance of EUR 9,500 within 14 days. The order fills a gap in the table of court fees for appeals against costs decisions.
Question
Which appeal fee is payable where an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP is directed only at the costs decision made on closure of provisional measures proceedings?
Decision
In line with the Court of Appeal’s order of 18 January 2024, the costs decision is a final decision within Rule 220.1(a) RoP, by application of Rule 360 RoP (paragraph 2). As the fee table provides no specific fee for this situation and is based on the type of claim decided at first instance, the applicable fee is that for appeals against orders on provisional measures (Rule 220.1(c) RoP and Article 62 UPCA), namely EUR 11,000, since the proceedings were closed as provisional measures proceedings (paragraph 3). That the appeal concerns only costs makes no difference, all the more so as the appellants ask the Court to assess whether the application for provisional measures was well founded (paragraph 4). The balance is EUR 9,500 (paragraph 5).
Key points for practice
- An appeal against a costs decision closing provisional measures proceedings attracts the fee for appeals on provisional measures, not the fixed fee under Rule 220.2 RoP (paragraphs 3 and 4).
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 62
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 220.1, 220.2 and 360
- Case law cited
- Court of Appeal, 18 January 2024, UPC_CoA_4/2024
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: UPC Court of Appeal.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.
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
- 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
- Generic Order
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La taxe due pour l'appel de la décision sur les frais clôturant une procédure de mesures provisoires est de 11 000 euros, Meril doit payer le solde de 9 500 euros dans les quatorze jours.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 763 331mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 18 January 2024) cited in this record
- Bruker Spatial Biology v 10x Genomics (CoA, 1 October 2025) 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 Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 18 January 2024) · Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 December 2023) · 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.