2024-10-02 - CoA - Meril v. Edwards Lifesciences - UPC_CoA_2/2024

Which party is the successful party within the meaning of Art. 69(1) UPCA in the context of a disposal of an action following a cease-and-desist undertaking by the defendant must be determined on the basis of the specific characteristics of the case and in particular the requests of the parties and the content of the undertaking. If, after the commencement of the proceedings, the defendant undertakes to comply with the claimant’s requests, it is generally not necessary to examine the admissibility and the merits of the case at the point of time of the undertaking in order to determine which party is the successful party. The undertaking itself implies that the claimant’s requests have been fulfilled. This means that, as a general rule, the claimant must be considered the successful party

The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against an order on costs, stating that the defendant who had signed a cease-and-desist undertaking which lead to an "no need to adjucate"-decision could generally be considered the unsuccessful party and therefore had to bear the costs of the proceedings.