2025-09-02 - Court of - Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril et al.

In case of partial success, there are different ways to express to what extent the (most) successful party shall have its legal costs and other expenses reimbursed by the (most) unsuccessful party. Neither the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) nor the Rules of Procedure (RoP) prevents that the Defendants are ordered to reimburse 100 % of the Claimant’s reasonable and proportionate costs in the infringement action and 75 % of the Claimant’s reasonable and proportionate costs in the counterclaim(s) for revocation, without deduction for any share of the Defendants’ costs, when the Court finds that this is an equitable (fair) distribution of the costs.

The Nordic Baltic RD dismissed the defendants' request to rectify the cost decision under R. 353 RoP. The defendants argued that awarding Edwards 75% of its costs in the revocation counterclaim implicitly meant Meril was entitled to recover 25% of its own costs. The court clarified that the cost allocation was intentional: defendants reimburse 100% of Edwards' costs in infringement and 75% in revocation, with Edwards bearing the remaining 25% of its own revocation costs. Defendants bear all their own costs. The UPCA and RoP do not require 'all-encompassing distribution' with cross-reimbursement — the court may order asymmetric allocation under Art. 69(2) UPCA's equitable apportionment discretion.