UPC CFI, CD Paris, 20 October 2025: injunction and public interest defence

Patent maintained in amended form (Article 65 UPCA), direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). 

No stay infringement action because of pending opposition proceedings (R. 295(a) RoP) Not requested by the parties; the proceedings are already at an advanced stage (oral hearing imminent),  would have the effect of postponing the decision on the infringement action – which is also ready to be decided – thereby frustrating the patent proprietor's interest in a swift protection of its exclusive right. 

Late filed ground of invalidity (R. 44 RoP) the issue concerning the added matter in claim 7 should have [been] filed with the statement for revocation as it constitutes a new and autonomous line of attack and, therefore, it must be excluded from the subject-matter of the proceedings. 

No late filed arguments in Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence for revocation regarding skilled person and claim construction (R. 52 RoP). A generous standard is to be applied. Defendant allowed, in light of the principle of fairness, to raise new arguments, facts, and documents, insofar as they are considered capable of supporting their stances, which were already timely taken and disputed by the claimant. The admissibility of these late filed arguments extends also to arguments that, while not constituting a direct response to the defendant’s arguments, are closely related to them. 

No late filed new evidence: to contrast and react to arguments raised in the Defence to revocation (R. 44 RoP, R. 51 RoP) following the defence raised by the defendant, the claimant may need to produce new evidence which disputes the facts alleged by the claimant or the probative value of the evidence already filed in Court. Similarly, the defendant may submit new evidence in reaction to facts or evidence produced by the claimant in its reply. 

Claim construction (Article 69 EPC).Claimants’ interpretation of “outer skirt”  is inconsistent with the only detailed embodiment disclosed in the patent, wherein – see in particular Fig. 42 and para. [0063] – the suture line between the outer skirt (18) and the inner skirt (16) appears located (slightly) within the inner space defined by the frame. The definition of “slack” as implying excess material is disclosed in the patent and consistent with the general meaning of the term. 

Invalidity because of added subject matter in claim 4, 7 and 8 (Article 76(1) EPC, Article 138(1)(c) EPC) the invalidity ground based upon Art. 76 (1) ‘EPC’ is considered well founded and the intermediate generalization concerning the omission of the claimed valve being a “heart” one unallowable. Accordingly, the patent cannot be maintained in the form as granted. 

Filing of 17 Auxiliary Requests not ‘unreasonable’ (R. 30 RoP) considering the complexity of the case (in particular, the number of lines of attacks to the patent). The lack of a consistent interpretation of the expression ‘reasonable in number’ also suggests a less strict interpretation of this relevant provision. 

Inventive step (Article 56 EPC) For the assessment of the inventive step, a “holistic approach” – that is, a broader way of assessing non-obviousness by considering the invention as a whole, rather than just focusing upon isolated distinguishing features – appears, in general, to be more appropriate. 

Injunction is the normal remedy to restrain future infringements, but court has discretionary power to where it would be disproportionate or would be unreasonably detrimental to the public interest, including the interests of third parties (Article 63 UPCA, Article 3 Enforcement Directive).To justify a public interest in the availability of the infringing embodiment, it is essential to demonstrate that this is the sole available treatment method or that it represents an improvement upon a known treatment method, resulting in a notable enhancement in patient care. Therefore, excluding a certain product from the range of those available to doctors for the performance of certain procedures does not engage in itself a relevant public interest, because it does not necessarily carry with it the implication that, had the choice not been available, all the patients could not have been treated adequately with the remaining products.  

IPPT20251020, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences