Key takeaways
The “same parties” requirement for exclusive local division jurisdiction under Art. 33(4) UPCA means the parties must be identical legal entities.
A revocation action by a claimant company is not barred by a pending infringement action against its parent and another subsidiary, as they are not identical parties. An exception for res judicata effect did not apply here.
The Court has discretion to admit late-filed claim amendments if they serve procedural economy and do not prejudice the other party (R. 50.2 RoP).
Aligning claim requests across parallel revocation and counterclaim proceedings was a legitimate reason for a late amendment, especially as the opposing party was given adequate time to respond.
An embodiment shown in a patent’s figures may be found not to be covered by the claims if the patent as a whole clearly teaches it is distinct (Art. 69 EPC).
The Court distinguished a claimed embodiment with hexagonal cells from a non-claimed embodiment with rhomboid cells shown in other figures, based on the patent’s explicit descriptive text.
The UPC assesses inventive step by determining if the skilled person would (not just could) have arrived at the solution without hindsight (Art. 56 EPC).
The Court found no motivation for the skilled person to modify the prior art’s mixed-cell valve frame into one made entirely of hexagonal cells, as this contradicted the prior art’s teaching.
A permanent injunction can be limited by proportionality, considering third-party interests such as patient health (Art. 63, 64 UPCA).
The Court granted an injunction but created an exemption for specific medical devices (XL sizes) where they are the only available treatment option, balancing the patent proprietor’s rights and public health.
An interim award of costs is generally limited to 50% of the applicable ceiling for recoverable representation costs, plus court fees (Art. 69(1) UPCA, R. 150(2) RoP).
The Court corrected a first instance order for “preliminary damages,” clarifying the legal basis is for costs, not damages, and reduced the awarded amount accordingly.
Division
Court of Appeal
UPC number
UPC_CoA_464/2024, UPC_CoA_457/2024, UPC_CoA_458/2024, UPC_CoA_530/2024, UPC_CoA_532/2024, UPC_CoA_533/2024, UPC_CoA_21/2025, UPC_CoA_27/2025
Type of proceedings
Appeal against decisions on infringement and revocation
Parties
Claimant (Infringement) / Defendant (Revocation) / Patent Proprietor: Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Defendant (Infringement) / Counterclaimant (Revocation): Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
Claimant (Revocation): Meril Italy Srl
Patent(s)
EP 3 646 825
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 33(4), 54, 56, 63, 64, 69(1), 69(2) UPCA
R. 30.2, 49.2, 50.2, 150(2), 152.2 RoP
Art. 56, 69, 84, 123(2) EPC
Art. 3, 11 Enforcement Directive
