Key takeaways
Filing of preliminary objection via an inappropriate workflow
Filing of preliminary objection via an inappropriate workflow is to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 42.2 UPCA). However, due to the early stage of the UPC proceedings and the resulting lack of experience with the UPC and its Rules of Procedure, the preliminary objection in the current case is considered validly filed and made part of the main proceedings.
Jurisdiction of the UPC for acts of infringement prior to the entry into force of the Convention
The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction for decisions on acts of infringement committed before the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court on June 1, 2023. This follows from Art. 3 c) and 32.1. a) UPCA and the absence of conflicting intertemporal orders.
Question of jurisdiction is not to be answered differentiated according to individual attacked embodiments or combinations of such attacked embodiments.
In the context of Art. 33.1 b) UPCA, the question is whether the same allegation of infringement is concerned. The claim must be interpreted for this purpose.
Subjects of preliminary objection
The possible subjects of a preliminary objection are listed exhaustively in Rule 19.1 a) RoP. For example, neither questions of stay due to pending parallel proceedings, nor the ordering of a security for the costs of the proceedings (Rule 158.1 of the RoP) nor the request to call in a technical judge (Art. 8 UPCA) are included.
Security of costs
Not subject of preliminary objection. At the discretion of the court (Art. 69 para. 4 UPCA; Rule 158.1 RP). The prerequisite for a successful request would be a demonstration that the financial circumstances of the other party give rise to insecurities that any claim for reimbursement of costs cannot be satisfied or that, despite sufficient financial resources, enforcement of a decision on costs appears to be impossible or particularly difficult.
Division
Local Division Munich
UPC number
UPC_CFI_15/2023
Type of proceedings
Infringement Action
Parties
Claimant: Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Irvine, US)
Defendants:
- Meril GmbH (Bonn, DE)
- Meril Life Sciences Ovt Ltd. (Vapi, IN)
Patent(s)
EP 3 646 825 B1
Body of legislation / Rules
- Article 3 UPCA
- Article 32 UPCA
- Article 33 UPCA
- Article 42 UPCA
- Article 69 UPCA
- Rule 4.1 RoP
- Rule 19.1 RoP
- Rules 158.1, 158.5 RoP