Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 18 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 18 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_166/2025), the Court of Appeal rejects the application by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Munich Local Division’s decision of 15 November 2024, as rectified on 17 February 2025, finding infringement of Edwards Lifesciences’ EP 3 646 825, or alternatively for a stay of enforcement against security. The order confirms that enforceability pending appeal is the rule and that arguments going to the merits of the appeal do not establish a manifest error.

Question

Should an appeal against an infringement decision have suspensive effect, or enforcement be stayed against security, where the appellant alleges errors of claim construction, a breach of the right to be heard and a pending appeal on validity?

Decision

An appeal has no suspensive effect save in exceptional circumstances, such as a manifestly erroneous decision or an appeal that would otherwise become devoid of purpose (paragraph 13). The appeal is not devoid of purpose, since Edwards undertook not to publish the decision (paragraph 14), claim construction and the other grounds are for the appeal on the merits (paragraph 15). A pending appeal on revocation is not enough on its own (paragraph 22). The alternative request, based on Rules 223.1 and 352.1, lacks a proper legal basis and runs against the rule that decisions are enforceable pending appeal (paragraphs 27 and 28). Costs are not decided (paragraph 30).

Key points for practice

• A stay of enforcement against security cannot rest on Rules 223.1 and 352.1, which concern suspensive effect and the binding effect of decisions (paragraph 27).
• Complying with the decision and then waiting more than three months before applying undermines any claim of urgency (paragraph 18).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.2(a), 118.8, 223.1 and 352.1

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024, ICPillar v ARM (UPC_CoA_301/2024), Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024, Belkin v Philips (UPC_CoA_549/2024).

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.