2023-11-13 - CD Paris - Meril v. Edwards Lifesciences - UPC_CFI_255/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_255/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Italy srl
Kernaussage: Preliminary objection Competence of the Central division
2023-11-13 - CD Paris - Meril
v.
Edwards Lifesciences - UPC_CFI_255/2023
Preliminary objection Competence of the Central division
landmark
The Central Division Paris Seat (judge-rapporteur Catallozzi) issued a landmark interpretation of the 'same parties' criterion in Art. 33(4) UPCA. Edwards had filed infringement proceedings at Munich LD against Meril India (parent) and Meril Germany; Meril Italy (Italian wholly-owned subsidiary) subsequently filed revocation at the Paris CD. Edwards' preliminary objection argued that Art. 33(4) UPCA required the revocation to be brought at the Munich LD because Meril Italy and the Munich defendants were effectively the 'same parties'. The CD rejected this on four grounds: (i) 'party' is defined by reference to each entity's national law (Arts. 46-47 UPCA) — under Italian law, corporate connection does not merge distinct legal personalities; (ii) the broad 'identical and indissociable interests' interpretation from CJEU Drouot Assurances (C-351/96) under Brussels Convention Art. 21 / Brussels I Recast Art. 29 is confined to inter-state lis pendens and does not transpose to the UPCA's own parallel-proceedings regime (Art. 33(2)(4)(5)(6) UPCA; R. 295, 302, 303, 340 RoP); (iii) Art. 33(4) UPCA is an exception to the general CD-competence rule for revocation and does not permit broad interpretation; (iv) the 'straw company' theory was not established — wholly-owned subsidiary status, overlapping directors/officers, recent incorporation, and absence of independent offices are connections but not evidence of a fictitious-entity agreement, consistent with EPO EBoA G-3/97 and G-4/97 on straw-man oppositions. The CD confirmed that the Art. 33 UPCA / R. 295 RoP tools (counterclaim referral, stay) are the proper response to parallel-proceedings risks, not a broad 'same parties' construction. Collateral rulings: late written submissions before the hearing may be admitted where they introduce no new grounds and where judicial-decision exhibits count as 'arguments' not 'facts'; judge-rapporteur has power under R. 331 RoP to decide R. 158 RoP security-for-costs applications; low share capital and recent incorporation alone do not justify security for costs. Panel-wise, decision is issued by judge-rapporteur alone under R. 20(1) RoP.
Stichwörter
Competence of the division of the Court of First Instance Article 33 (2) UPCA Same parties