Meril v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 5 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_635/2024), the Court of Appeal, on Meril GmbH’s appeal, sets aside the order of the Paris Central Division of 14 October 2024 (ORD_37077/2024) that had granted a European patent attorney, board member of SWAT Medical, and that company access to the pleadings and evidence in the counterclaim for revocation between Meril GmbH and Edwards Lifesciences on EP 3 646 825, and dismisses the access request.

Question

What decision follows where the statement of response is signed by an applicant who could neither represent himself nor the co-applicant company, and can costs be awarded in proceedings for access to the register?

Decision

Despite the order of 12 February 2025 requiring him to instruct a representative, the applicant signed the statement himself, the named representative having neither appeared nor signed: no valid statement of response was lodged (paragraphs 11 to 17). Rule 235.3 RoP is a lex specialis. The reasoned decision it allows, even of the Court’s own motion, is effectively a default decision, and the remedy in Rule 356.1 RoP applies mutatis mutandis (paragraphs 18 to 23). Access cannot be granted to members of the public who are not represented (paragraph 24). Since access to the register is administrative in nature, no costs are compensated, save unnecessary costs under Art. 69(3) UPCA (paragraphs 26 to 35).

Key points for practice

• An authorised representative who is himself a party to an access request may represent neither himself nor a company he manages (paragraph 8).
• Practical point: a party against whom a default decision is given has one month from service to apply to set it aside (Rule 356.1 RoP).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 10, 45, 47 and 69(1) and (3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.1, 8.2, 235.3, 236, 262.1(b), 262.2, 285, 293, 355.1, 355.2, 356.1, 356.3, 357 and 370

Other provisions

Statute of the Unified Patent Court, Art. 37(1)

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 8 February 2024, Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024

Related decisions

• Meril Italy v SWAT Medical, 5 May 2025, decision of the same day on Meril Italy’s appeal.
• Meril Life Sciences v SWAT Medical, 5 May 2025, decision of the same day on Meril Life Sciences’ appeal.

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.