2024-04-30 - 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: The Court has the discretionary powers to admit an amend of the patent even after a previous application to amend that patent has been submitted and after the closing of the written procedure; however, the admission of this subsequent request must not prejudice the other party��…

2024-04-30 - CD Paris - Meril v. Edwards Lifesciences - UPC_CFI_255/2023
🏛️Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat• Order
📅2024-04-30
🔢UPC_CFI_255/2023
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Meril Italy srl
Emmanuel LARERE
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Boris KREYE
📋ORD_24620/2024
⚖️Generic application
🌐English

The Court has the discretionary powers to admit an amend of the patent even after a previous application to amend that patent has been submitted and after the closing of the written procedure; however, the admission of this subsequent request must not prejudice the other party’s right to defence.

notable
The Central Division (Paris Seat) Panel 2 held that R. 30(2) RoP confers discretion to admit a subsequent application to amend the patent even after the closing of the written procedure, provided the other party's right of defence is preserved. Exercising this discretion in the Meril v Edwards revocation action on EP 3 646 825, the judge-rapporteur admitted Edwards's second amend application (1 unconditional amendment plus 6 auxiliary requests, replacing the earlier 84-request set) on efficiency and fairness grounds, while rejecting the stated justification of aligning the defence with the counterclaim proceedings. The claimant was granted one month to file an additional defence; the written procedure did not need to be re-opened because the additional pleading is part of the preparation for the oral hearing. The claimant's request for an ancillary rejoinder window was refused because the defendant's unauthorised reply of 12 April 2024 must be disregarded.
Stichwörter
subsequent request to amend the patent; permission of the Court; closing of the written procedure; additional defence

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren