1. Key takeaways
The possibility that an injunction might be granted by the Court of First Instance (Local Division) in infringement proceedings based on a patent that has been upheld in first instance revocation proceedings, but may subsequently be revoked by the Court of Appeal, is not sufficient to justify expediting the appeal proceedings.
The two Defendants in the infringement proceedings pending before the Munich Local Division filed counterclaims for revocation of the patent at issue. In addition, a subsidiary of the Defendants filed a revocation action before the Central Division. The Munich Local Division referred the counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division. The Central Division maintained the patent at issue by auxiliary request II and rejected the counterclaims for revocation and the revocation action accordingly. This decision was appealed.
Appellants requested expedition of the appeal proceedings in view of the threat of the injunction which would cause severe and irreparable harm. However, the Court of Appeal held that the possibility that a Local Division might grant an injunction on the basis of a patent upheld by the Court of First Instance that may be revoked in appeal proceedings is not sufficient to justify the expedition of the appeal proceedings. Rather, the Local Division has various means to mitigate the risk of granting an injunction or the harm caused by such an injunction where the validity of the patent at issue is subject to an appeal, e.g. a stay of the infringement proceedings or rendering the decision under the condition subsequent that the patent is not held invalid by a final decision in the revocation proceedings.
2. Division
Court of Appeal
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_457/2024, UPC_CoA_458/2024, UPC_CFI_255/2023
4. Type of proceedings
Appeal related to Central Revocation Action and Counterclaim for Revocation
5. Parties
Appellant:
- Meryl Italy Srl (Milan, IT)
- Meryl GmbH (Bonn, DE)
- Meryl Life Sciences Pvt Ltd (Vapi, Gujarat India)
Respondent:
- Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Irvine, California, USA)
1. Patent(s)
EP 3646825
2. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 9.3(b) RoP
To view the full article, click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.