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:
- Application Order
- Parteien:
- Meril Italy srl
Kernaussage: Rule 30 ‘RoP’.
2024-02-27 - CD Paris - Meril
v.
Edwards Lifesciences - UPC_CFI_255/2023
Rule 30 ‘RoP’.
notable
In a revocation action against EP 3 646 825, the Paris Central Division (Panel 2) refused the patent proprietor's attempt to replace its original application to amend the patent with a new main request plus 41 auxiliary requests submitted with the rejoinder. The panel held that substituting one application to amend the patent for another falls outside R. 263 RoP (which concerns changes to the claim or case, construed as a hendiadys) and is instead governed by R. 50(2) in conjunction with R. 30(2) RoP, which permits a 'subsequent' amendment only with the Court's permission. In exercising that discretion, the panel applied the proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity principles of the RoP preamble and rejected the proprietor's justifications: the need to align amendments with parallel counterclaims in the Munich LD is not a valid basis, because the UPC framework (Art. 33(3) UPCA; R. 295(m), R. 30(3) RoP) already provides tools to manage the risk of inconsistent decisions without compelling the proprietor to run identical defences across divisions. The panel also rejected the R. 264 hearing request, the R. 340(1) consolidation request and leave to appeal, while clarifying that a joint-party agreement on a new set of amendments during the proceedings remains possible.
Stichwörter
subsequent request to amend the patent; request to amend the case.