UPC_CFI_1160/2026 – Edwards v Meril

Court
Local Division Munich
Date
Outcome
Granted
Sector
Pharma/Bio
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Damage proceedings / opening books Facts 1. Meril infringed EP 3 669 828 with respect to its Myval heart catheters. 2. On 10 June 2026 Meril filed its response against Edwards’ request for damages and for the books to be opened, together with a request for protection of confidential information. 3. On 12 June 2026 Edwards responded to the confidentiality request. 4. On 15 June 2026 the JR changed the status of the documents and access was given to the representatives of Edwards. 5. On 25 June 2026 Edwards asked for an extension of the term to respond to the request to open the books, which had expired that day. It argued that it did notice the change of status and that they had only gained access to the request to open the books on 23 June 2026. The JR 1. After the order of the JR to change the status on 15 June 2026, Edwards should have inquired with the sub-registry if the change had been made. 2. The JR also notes that the CMS does not send an automatic notification of such a change. 3. The JR grants an extension until 1 July 2026. Comment 1. The JR notes that the representatives of Edwards have not been vigilant but also notes that it would be better if the CMS would send an automatic notification and therefore grants an extension of a week. 2. That seems all reasonable. I understand from the facts, that the representatives of Edwards could (if they would have been vigilant) only get access to the documents on 15 June 2026 (order says 16 June 2026). It seems not totally unreasonable that the 14 days for a reply to the defence against the request to lay open books starts to run on 16 June 2026 which means that the term for a response would end on 1 July 2026. On the other hand it would have also certainly been possible to react on 25 June 2026 which would have given Edwards 9 days. 3. Conclusion: a. The CMS should be changed so that it sends automatically notifications if an access regime has been changed. b. When revising the Rules, consideration must be given to the effect of confidentiality requests and the influence on time periods for filing pleadings. These requests should certainly not be used to slow down the proceedings.

Full Decision Text

Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division Munich issued on 26 June 2026 CLAIMANT/APPLICANT: Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, 1 Edwards Way, 92614, Irvine, US represented by: Bryce Matthewson, Siddharth Kusumakar, Adam Rimmer (Powell Gilbert) DEFENDANTS/RESPONENTS: 1. Meril Gmbh, Bornheimer Straße 135-137 - 53119 - Bonn – DE 2. Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., M1‐M2, Meril Park, Survey No 135/2/B & 174/2 Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi - 396 191 Gujarat - Vapi – IN 3. Meril Italy S.r.l., Piazza Tre Torri 2, 20145, Milan, IT represented by: Dr. Andreas von Falck, Dr. Roman Würtenberger, Beatrice Wilden, Chia Ching Chuong (Hogan Lovells) PATENT AT ISSUE: European patent n° 3 669 828 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel 1a of the Local Division Munich. DECIDING JUDGE: This order has been issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann acting as judge-rapporteur. Local Division Munich UPC CFI 1160/2026 UPC CFI 1160/2026 2 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: APPLICATION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES (Art. 68 UPCA, R. 125, R. 126 and R. 131 RoP) WITH REQUEST TO LAY OPEN BOOKS (R. 131.1(c) and R. 141 RoP) PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: 1. With decision of the Munich Local Division issued on 4 April 2025 and served on the parties on the same day (UPC CFI 501/2023, ORD 598588/2023 in Action Number ACT 597277/2023 and ORD 69128/2024 in Action Number CC 23112/2024, the Decision1) this Court held, inter alia, that Meril GmbH (Meril Germany), Meril Life Science Pvt. Ltd (Meril India) and Meril Italy S.r.l. (Meril Italy), (together, Meril or the Defendants): (i) infringed EP 3 669 828 B2 (EP 828) owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Edwards) with respect to the Myval Transcatheter Heart Valve (the Myval THV) and the assembly that comprises the Myval THV and the Navigator THV delivery apparatus (the Myval System), (together, the Infringing Products);2 and therefore (ii) are jointly and severally obliged to compensate Edwards for the damage (including interest) that Edwards has suffered and will suffer as a result of their infringing acts committed since 5 May 2021. The Decision has not been appealed and has thus become final. 2. With brief dated 2 April 2026 Edwards filed an application for the determination of damages (the Application), which includes a request for an order to lay open books. 3. With brief dated 10 June 2026 Meril filed a DEFENCE TO APPLICATION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES WITH REQUEST TO LAY OPEN BOOKS together with an APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. 4. With a brief dated 12 June 2026, Edwards responded to the application for the protection of confidential information. 5. On 15 June 2026, the JR granted the confidentiality request. On the same day, the Sub- Registry changed the status of the documents classified as 'HC' to 'R', thus making them available to Edwards' UPC representative. Furthermore, the Sub-Registry uploaded a relevant document. 6. With brief dated 24. June 2026, Edwards informed the court that their UPC representative had only become aware of the change in confidentiality status on 23 June 2026, as no UPC CFI 1160/2026 3 notification email had been sent. They requested clarification or an extension to the deadline for filing a reply to the defence. 7. On the same day, the JR invited Meril to submit observations: 'Respondents are invited to submit their observations within one day. Applicants should note that, after the observations have been considered, the maximum extension to the deadline that can be granted is two days. This is because the UPC representative for the applicant should have inquired with the sub-registry by 17 June 2026 at the latest.' 8. In a brief dated 25 June 2026, Meril informed the court that they did not object to a limited extension of two days. In their view, a further extension is not justified. REQUESTS BY THE PARTIES: 9. Edwards requests: I. pursuant to R. 9.1 RoP, confirm and declare that the 14-day period under R. 142.3 RoP for the Applicant to lodge its Reply (the Reply) to the Defendants’ Defence to the Applicant’s application for the determination of damages with request to lay open books (the Defence) runs from 23 June 2026, being the date on which the Applicant in fact obtained access to the unredacted versions of the Defendants’ Defence and Confidentiality Application for protection of confidential information (the Confidentiality Application); or II. in the alternative, pursuant to R. 9.3(a) RoP, order that the Applicant be granted an extension to the deadline for filing its Reply to the Defence such that the deadline is 14 days from 23 June 2026 (i.e. 7 July 2026). GROUNDS 10. Only a limited extension of two days can be granted, as the UPC representative for Edwards should have inquired with the sub-registry by 17 June 2026 at the latest. Meril does not object to this. 11. Edwards was aware of the JR's order dated 16 June 2026. This order instructed the sub- registry to change the confidentiality status from 'HC' to 'R'. Therefore, execution of this order was expected the next day at the latest. In fact, the change was made only two and a half hours after the order had been uploaded, on the same day. Had the UPC representative for Edwards inquired with the sub-registry, they would have been informed of the successful change to the confidentiality status. UPC CFI 1160/2026 4 12. However, it must be noted that the current instructions for the sub-registry are to be reviewed and amended in light of the fact that the CMS does not send out automatic notifications when the confidentiality status of a document is changed, which has resulted in the current eight-page, twenty-paragraph application. ORDER Edwards is granted an extension to the deadline for filing its reply to the defence until 1 July 2026. The application is otherwise rejected. INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEW BY PANEL Any party may request that this Order be referred to the panel for a review pursuant to R. 333 RoP. Pending review, the Order shall be effective (R. 102.2 RoP) Dr. Zigann Presiding Judge

Key Holdings

  • An extension of time was granted despite the applicant's lack of vigilance regarding document access.
  • The UPC's Case Management System (CMS) currently lacks automatic notifications for changes in document access status.
  • The JR acknowledged the need for CMS improvement to send automatic notifications for access regime changes.
  • Confidentiality requests should not be used as a tactic to slow down proceedings.
  • Future revisions of the Rules should consider the impact of confidentiality requests on pleading deadlines.

Tags

  • Damages
  • Confidentiality
  • Procedural
  • Extension of Time
  • Case Management System (CMS)

Related Cases

View original decision