Meril Italy Srl, Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, UPC Court of Appeal, Procedural Order, 6 September 2024, Case no. UPC_CoA_458/2024
The Court of Appeal rejected Meril’s requests to expedite the appeals against earlier decisions of the Central Division in Paris, which, in short, upheld Edwards Lifesciences’ patent in amended form.
For the background of the case in first instance, an earlier post on the EPLAW Patent Blog can be read here:
The Order -issued by judge-rapporteur Peter Blok- states:
“14. The possibility that the Munich Local Division might grant an injunction on the basis of a patent that has been upheld by the Court of First Instance but may subsequently be revoked by the Court of Appeal, is not sufficient to justify expediting the appeals.
“15. The Munich Local Division has various means at its disposal to mitigate the risk of granting an injunction or the harm caused by such an injunction, in situations where the validity of the patent is subject to appeals. For example, the division can stay the infringement proceedings pending the appeals or render its decision under the condition subsequent that the patent is not held invalid by a final decision in the revocation proceedings (R. 118.2 RoP). Meril has made such requests in the infringement proceedings.
“16. Furthermore, the requested expedition cannot prevent the alleged harm to Meril from an injunction. In the expedited timetable proposed by Meril, the oral hearing in the appeal proceedings is scheduled for mid-January 2025. The oral hearing in the infringement proceedings
has been scheduled for 24 September 2024. Given these timeframes, it is highly unlikely that the appeals will be decided before the decision in the infringement proceedings.
“17. Meril’s complaint that the impugned decision contains significant errors and fails to address several arguments, falls within the scope of the examination of the merits of the appeal. These alleged errors do not justify expediting the appeal proceedings.
“18. For similar reasons, the Court of Appeal dismisses Meril’s reference to the need to establish a consistent application and interpretation of R. 50.2, R. 30.1 and R. 30.2 RoP. Such a need does not justify the expedition of the appeal proceedings.”
The entire order can be accessed here.
