UPC_CFI_775/2025; UPC_CFI_776/2025; UPC_CFI_777/2025 – Edwards v Meril
- Court
- Nordic-Baltic Regional Division
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Stay Facts 1. On 21 July 2025, the Court issued its decision, which includes a decision on the obligation to pay costs. 2. On 21 August 2025, the parties applied for costs and confidentiality pursuant to R. 262.2 RoP. 3. On 30 September 2025, the parties asked for a stay in the cost proceedings pending the outcome of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office. The JR 1. The parties agreed on requesting a stay and on confidentiality obligations specified in the order. 2. The Court orders the stay and that pending the stay, the content of the requests in the cost proceedings will be treated as confidential. 3. The final decision with respect to R. 262.2 RoP will be made after the stay. Comment 1. It is difficult to know what parties have agreed but it may be that they have reached an agreement about costs that depends on the outcome of the opposition proceedings with respect to the patent at issue. 2. You know I advocate for agreeing on costs. It tends to be easier to reach such an agreement before the decision is published. An added advantage of a cost agreement is that you generally do not have to (publicly) specify such costs. That is, of course, assuming that the Court does order that the costs be published in the general interest of the Court’s users.
Full Decision Text
Unified Patent Court Nordic-Baltic Regional Division Einheitliches Patentgericht UPCCFI775/2025 UPCCFI776/2025 UPCCFI777/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 5 December 2025 (on confidentiality and stay of proceedings) APPLICANT in CFI775/2025 RESPONDENT in CFI776/2025 & CFI777/2025 Represented by Jens Olsson (Advokatbyrån Gulliksson AB), Siddharth Kusumakar & Bryce Matthewson (Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP), Adam Rimmer (Powell Gilbert LLP), Dr. Jonas Weickert & Bernhard Thum (Thum & Partner) APPLICANTS in CFI776/2025 & CFI777/2025 RESPONDENTS in CFI775/2025 Represented by Andreas von Falck, Alexander Klicznik, Kerstin Jonen, Roman Würtenberger, Lars-Fabian Blume, Beatrice Wilden & Friederike Hermes (Hogan Lovells International LLP), Karin Westerberg & Julia Ericsson (Sandart & Partners Advokatbyrå) PATENT AT ISSUE EP 3 769 722 DIVISION Nordic-Baltic Regional Division DECIDING JUDGE/S This order has been issued by presiding judge Stefan Johansson, acting as judge-rapporteur LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English SUBJECT-MATTER Cost decisions – Requests for confidentiality and stay of proceedings SUMMARY OF FACTS AND REQUESTS On 21 July 2025, the Court of first instance (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) issued its decision on the merits in case CFI 380/2023, which included an infringement action and counterclaims for revocation. In the decision, the Court decided in principle on the obligation to bear legal costs and other expenses. On 21 August, the parties submitted, inter alia, applications for cost decisions and applications for the protection of confidential information. On 30 September 2025, the parties submitted requests for the stay of the proceedings for a cost decision pending the outcome of the opposition proceedings against EP 3 769 722 B1 currently pending before the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (case no. T-241/25-3.2.02). Following orders from the Court, the parties have clarified their respective requests for confidentiality and confirmed that the requests are based on R. 262.2 and/or 262A RoP and/or a mutual agreement between the parties. They request that the Court’s order on stay of proceedings include provisional protection against the other party or its representatives disclosing alleged confidential information to third parties. The parties have also agreed to keep the alleged confidential information confidential pending this order by the Court. This order deals with the requests for stay of the proceedings and – provisionally – the requests for confidentiality. GROUNDS The parties have agreed that these cases should be stayed pending a decision from the EPO Technical Board of Appeal in the parallel opposition proceedings relating to the patent-in-suit (EP 3 769 722). They have also agreed to the confidentiality obligations specified in this order. According to Rule 295 (d) RoP, the Court may stay proceedings at the joint request of the parties. There is no reason for the Court to refuse the requested stay in this case. 2 According to Rule 262 RoP, alleged confidential information may be kept confidential pending a request from the public in accordance with Rule 262.3 RoP. Furthermore, the Court may – in accordance with Rule 262A RoP – restrict the use of certain information, which may include protection against the other party or its representatives disclosing the information to third parties (see e.g. UPCCoA70/2025 and UPCCoA001/2025, order of 1 August 2025). The Court may also order such restrictions pending the Court’s final decision on a request pursuant to Rule 262A RoP. The provisional confidentiality requests specified in this order are justified and should be granted. A culpable breach of the order may result in the imposition of a penalty payment. The parties should be ordered to inform the Court about the outcome at the Boards of Appeal. They should also be given the possibility to submit any last comments on the confidentiality requests, after having been given access to the unredacted versions of certain documents. ORDER 1. The proceedings (CFI775/2025, CFI776/2025 and CFI777/2025) are stayed pending the decision from the EPO Technical Board of Appeal in the parallel opposition proceedings (case no. T-241/25-3.2.02) relating to the patent-in-suit (EP 3 769 722 B1). 2. Access to the unredacted version of the Cost Application dated 21 August 2025 in case CFI775/2025 and the unredacted versions of Exhibits EDW-Costs-2 and EDW-Costs-3, submitted on the same date in the same case, containing the following (alleged) confidential Information a. the information marked in grey under paragraphs 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 32 in the Cost Application; and b. Exhibits EDW-Costs-2 and EDW-Costs-3 to the Cost Application; shall, pending a final decision upon the confidentiality request, be restricted to the Defendants and their representatives in these proceedings. The Defendants and their representatives shall treat this alleged confidential Information as confidential and may not, until further notice, disclose the information to any third party outside of these Court proceedings or use the information for purposes unrelated to these proceedings. 3. Access to the unredacted version of the Cost Applications dated 21 August 2025 in case CFI776/2025 and case CFI777/2025 as well as the unredacted versions of Exhibits HL Costs 1 to 6, submitted on the same date in the same cases, containing the following (alleged) confidential Information the information marked in grey in the Application for a Cost Decision; and Exhibits HL Costs 1 to 6 submitted with the Application for a Cost Decision; shall, pending a final decision upon the confidentiality requests, be restricted to the Claimant and its representatives in these proceedings. The Claimant and its representatives shall treat this alleged confidential Information as confidential and may not, until further notice, disclose the information to any third party outside of these Court proceedings or use the information for purposes unrelated to these proceedings. 4) The unredacted versions of the documents mentioned in paragraphs 2) and 3) shall, to the extent they currently are marked as “HC” (Highly Confidential) in the CMS, be made available for the opposing party and its representatives in the CMS, subject to the restrictions specified in paragraphs 2) and 3). 5) In the event of a culpable breach of this order, the Court may impose a periodic penalty payment for each violation, which will be determined having regard to the circumstances of the individual breach. 6) The parties shall, as soon as possible, inform the Court of the outcome of the decision from the EPO Technical Board of Appeal in the parallel opposition proceedings (case no. T-241/25-3.2.02) relating to the patent-in-suit (EP 3 769 722 B1). 7) If the parties wish to submit further comments on the requests for confidentiality, before the Court takes its final decision pursuant to Rule 262A RoP, they shall do so at the latest when informing the Court about the outcome at the EPO in accordance with paragraph 6). Issued in Stockholm on 5 December 2025 Stefan Johansson Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur
Key Holdings
- The Court granted a stay in cost proceedings pending the outcome of EPO Board of Appeal decision.
- Content of requests in cost proceedings will be treated as confidential during the stay.
- A final decision regarding costs under R. 262.2 RoP will be made after the stay is lifted.
- The parties mutually agreed on the request for a stay and confidentiality obligations.
Tags
- Confidentiality
- Costs
- Stay of Proceedings