PHOENIX CONTACT v ILME (CoA, 28 March 2025)
| Date | 28 March 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_14792/2025 · ORD_15047/2025 |
| Parties | PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG |
Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.
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.
English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.
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
No case number recorded in this record.
Parties
- claimantPHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La prorogation est limitée à trois jours, jusqu'au 7 avril 2025, au lieu des trois semaines demandées.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 646 825mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 3 September 2025) cites this decision
- Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, 17 April 2025) cites this decision
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 An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.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
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 646 825A system comprising a prosthetic valve and a delivery catheter recorded proprietor: Edwards Lifesciences Corp | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 32 other decision(s): Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences (CFI, 15 November 2024) · Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 July 2024) · Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (CFI, 19 July 2024) · Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 25 November 2025) · Edwards Lifesciences v Sintec (CFI, 5 September 2025) · Meril Italy v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025) · Meril v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025) · Meril Life Sciences v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) 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.