UPC_CFI_ 262/2025 – Edwards v Sintec/Value Med

Court
Local Division Milan
Date
Outcome
Granted
Sector
Other
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Settlement Facts Edwards started PI proceedings on 6 March 2025. The respondents filed their objection to the application on 24 April 2025. On 5 May 2025, the JR invited the parties to negotiate a settlement and made some suggestions for such settlement. The parties then settled and Edwards asked the Court to confirm the settlement. The respondents agreed (R. 365.1 RoP). Edwards requested 60% of the court fees back. The Court The Court confirmed the settlement. The Court refused reimbursement of the court fees. Comment 1. Excellent work by the JR, who managed to get the parties to settle without even the need for an oral hearing. This is an example for other JRs to follow. The Rules (see for example R. 104(d) RoP and R. 332(f) RoP) are clear: the Court should facilitate and encourage settlement. 2. In PI proceedings, you do not get the court costs back. The representative should have known this by now. After the excellent work of the JR (which saved his client a lot of money), he should not have even asked for them!

Full Decision Text

1 of 12 Milan Local Division UPC CFI NO. 202/2025 Act. no. 10936/2025 App. no 30486/2025 DECISION concerning confirmation of settlement issued on 5.9.2025 APPLICANT EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION represented by Siddharth Kusumakar, Bryce Matthewson and Adam Rimmer RESPONDENTS 1) SINTEC S.R.L. 2) VALUE MED S.R.L. represented by Giovanni Ghirardi, Francesco Banterle, Andrea Schettino, Andreas von Falck, Roman Würtenberger and Beatrice Wilden PATENT AT ISSUE EP 3 646 825 B1 PANEL AND DECIDING JUDGES Pierluigi Perrotti presiding judge and judge rapporteur Alima Zana legally qualified judge Margot Kokke legally qualified judge LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English 2 of 12 SUMMARY OF FACTS On 6.3.2025 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (hereinafter Edwards) filed an application for provisional measures based on EP 3 646 825 B1 against Sintec s.r.l. and Value Med s.r.l. before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. On 24.4.2025 Respondents filed their objection to the application. Exercising the case management powers provided for in rule 332 RoP, by order of 5.5.2025 the judge-rapporteur invited the Parties to enter into negotiations and proposed some possible contents of a settlement. On 25.6.2025 Edwards filed an application informing the Court that the parties reached a settlement - signed on 23.6.2025 - and requesting the Court (i) to confirm the settlement agreement by decision of the Court and (ii) to grant the rembuirsement for 60% of the Court fees. Sintec and Value Med did not oppose Edwards’ requests, as clarified in their most recent submissions filed on 30.7.2025. PARTIES’ REQUESTS The Parties jointly request that the Court (i) confirm the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit EDW- App-1) by decision of the Court, pursuant to Art. 79 UPCA and rule 365.1 RoP; (ii) publish the redacted copy of the Settlement Agreement in the form of Exhibit EDW-App-2 with its decision. In addition, pursuant to rules 370.9(c) and 370.11 RoP, Edwards requests that the Court reimburse it for 60% of the Court fees, namely EUR 6,600.00. GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION Art. 79 UPCA states that “The parties may, at any time in the course of proceedings, conclude their case by way of settlement, which shall be confirmed by a decision of the Court. [...]”. Rule 365.1 RoP states as follows: “Where the parties have concluded their action by way of settlement, they shall inform the judge-rapporteur. The Court shall confirm the settlement by decision of the Court, if requested by the parties, and the decision may be enforced as a final decision of the Court.” Rule 11.2 RoP states that “Pursuant to rule 365 the Court shall, if requested by the parties, by decision confirm the terms of any settlement or arbitral award by consent (irrespective of whether it was reached using the facilities of the Centre or otherwise), including a term which obliges the patent owner to limit, surrender or agree to the revocation of a patent or not to assert it against the other party and/or third parties. The parties may agree on costs to be awarded or may request the Court to decide on costs to be awarded in accordance with Rules 150 to 156 mutatis mutandis”. 3 of 12 In the case at hand, the Parties entered into a settlement agreement on 23.6.2025 ending the litigation between them. The Court has no objection to confirming this settlement agreement, which is attached to this decision. Pursuant to rule 365.2 RoP, certain parts of the Settlement Agreement shall be kept confidential according to the Parties’ request. Rule 365.4 RoP states that “The judge-rapporteur shall give a decision as to costs following the terms of the settlement or, failing that, at his discretion.” Rule 11.2 RoP states that: “The parties may agree on costs to be awarded or may request the Court to decide on costs to be awarded in accordance with Rules 150 to 156 mutatis mutandis”. The Parties agreed on costs and requested no decision relating thereto. As to the claim for reimbursement of court fees, according to Edwards, the parties reached a settlement agreement prior to the exchange of all written submissions - and thus before the closure of the written procedure, pursuant to rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP - because, in order no. 21229/2025, the Court had already announced that in the event that the parties were unable to reach a settlement, it would have been necessary to authorise the exchange of further written submissions. The Court finds that rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP is not applicable to applications for provisional measures, either directly or by analogy (see UPC CFI no. 500/2025, order 28 August 2025, LD Mannheim). The wording of the provision refers only to actions. Furthermore, the stages of the proceedings referred to in rule 370.9(c) RoP are not applicable in proceedings concerning applications for provisional measures. In particular, there is no interim procedure and oral hearings do not take place in every case. Furthermore, the court fees for applications filed pursuant to rule 206 RoP is already significantly reduced compared to that for actions. Against this background, no further reductions are provided for or required. An appeal against this decision may be lodged with the Court of Appeal, by any party who has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, within two months of the date of its notification (Art. 73.1 UPCA, rules 220.1(a) and 224.1(a) RoP). DECISION At the request of the parties, the Court confirms, pursuant to rule 365.1 RoP, that the parties have reached the following settlement 4 of 12 5 of 12 6 of 12 7 of 12 8 of 12 9 of 12 10 of 12 11 of 12 12 of 12 - this decision including only the redacted version of the settlement shall be entered on the register; - the request for reimbursement of the court fees is dismissed; - this decision is enforceable as a final decision of the Court. Milan, 5 September 2025. Pierluigi Perrotti presiding judge and judge rapporteur Alima Zana legally qualified judge Margot Kokke legally qualified judge for the Deputy Registrar

Key Holdings

  • Settlement confirmed (R. 365.1 RoP).
  • Reimbursement of court fees denied because PI proceedings are not eligible.
  • JR proactively facilitated settlement.

Tags

  • Court Fees
  • Preliminary Injunction
  • Settlement

Related Cases

View original decision