2024-02-27 - 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:
- Meril Italy srl / Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Kernaussage: Rule 30 RoP
2024-02-27 - CD Paris - Meril
v.
Edwards Lifesciences - UPC_CFI_255/2023
Rule 30 RoP
notable
Panel 2 of the Paris Central Division held that a proprietor's attempt to replace its pending application to amend the patent with a new set of main and auxiliary requests — filed with the rejoinder long after the deadline for the defence to revocation — is governed by Rule 30(2) RoP (via Rule 50(2) RoP), not by Rule 263 RoP, because the request does not 'change a claim' or 'amend the case' within the meaning of Rule 263 [20]-[23]. The Court exercises its discretion under Rule 30(2) RoP by balancing procedural efficiency, proportionality, fairness and equity, against the prejudice to the opponent and the objective of expeditious decisions [28]-[33]. The panel refused permission, holding that the need to align amendments with parallel counterclaims before the Munich LD is not a justification, since consistency across divisions is safeguarded by Art. 33(3) UPCA, Rule 295(m) RoP and Rule 30(3) RoP, and the proprietor need not have identical defences in different proceedings [37]-[46]. The panel also rejected the defendant's Rule 340 RoP request for joint hearing with Munich as premature and denied leave to appeal [50]-[55].
Stichwörter
Subsequent request to amend the patent ; request to amend the case