UPC Munich Rejects Edwards' "Springboard" Damages Theory Against Meril but Opens the Books on Tenders

By Haedar

Photo: jorge_romero_ortiz / Pixabay

How far can a patent owner reach when it counts the money an infringer made? The Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) gave a first answer on 28 October 2026 in Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril (UPC_CFI_1160/2026), a damages phase that follows an earlier finding that Meril's Myval transcatheter heart valve infringed Edwards' European patent EP 3 669 828. It is the first UPC order to apply the rules on laying open the books, and the court granted leave to appeal for that reason.

Edwards lost its broadest argument. The court refused to let it claim profits from what it called Meril's "springboard": using the infringing valves to recruit patients into the LANDMARK and COMPARE clinical trials, to win CE marks for later devices, and to build a sales network and ties with cardiologists. But Edwards did win a narrower point that may prove valuable. Where Meril entered a tender with an infringing Myval device and later delivered a different, non-infringing valve under that same tender, the profits on those substituted sales are in play.

Two different disclosure tools

The order separates two procedural routes. Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure lets a party ask what happened. Rule 141, by contrast, is about the money: it is the tool for obtaining the financial details needed to calculate damages. Because it is procedural, Rule 141 applies whatever substantive law governs a given period, including periods before the UPC Agreement took effect, when national law decides the damages question.

The list of items in Rule 141(c) is not closed, so a request is not barred just because it touches non-infringing products. The real limit is proportionality. Drawing on Article 42 of the UPC Agreement, the preamble to the Rules, and the EU Enforcement Directive, the court said a request must fail where it is plain that the information could never help to calculate damages.

Why the springboard claim failed

Under Article 68 of the UPC Agreement, an infringer's profits include profits on related transactions, but only those causally linked and close enough to what infringed. The court accepted that consumables and accessories made to work with the infringing device can count. Gains that are linked only distantly cannot, and damages may not become a penalty.

Edwards' springboard theory fell on both points. First, it had not shown that running trials, gaining certification or building relationships were themselves acts of use under Articles 25 and 26 of the Agreement. Second, even if they were, later sales of non-infringing valves had no real link to the invention. The patent concerns how tabs are folded inside the valve's leaflet structure, and Meril's successor devices use a different leaflet design. The court also found that the German Federal Court of Justice's Polsterumarbeitungsmaschine ruling (X ZR 30/21) did not help Edwards. That case denies a causal link where profits come from a stronger market profile or reinvested earnings rather than from the technical features of the invention.

The tender exception

Tenders were treated differently. Submitting an infringing device in a tender is itself an "offer" under Article 25(a) of the Agreement. If Meril offered at least one infringing Myval valve and then supplied other devices from its range (Octacor, Octapro and Octapro+) and their accessories under that tender, those sales are causally tied to the infringing offer. They are also tied to the invention, the court reasoned, because the patented feature sat in the device that won the contract. Disclosure was ordered only for these substitution cases, and how much of those profits will count is left for the damages stage.

On national law, the court presumed that the damages rules of the UPC states do not differ in any meaningful way, given harmonisation through the Enforcement Directive. A party that says otherwise has to plead and prove the difference.

What this means

For patent owners, the order is a warning against treating every later commercial success of an infringer as fruit of the infringement. Clinical data, regulatory approvals and customer goodwill are hard to pin to a single patented feature, especially where the follow-on product works differently.

For defendants, the tender reasoning matters most. Bidding with an infringing product and swapping in a non-infringing one after the award may not keep the resulting revenue out of reach. Medical device makers that sell through public procurement should look at how their bids describe the products on offer.

Because leave to appeal has been granted, the Court of Appeal may yet refine these rules. Until then, this order is the leading UPC guidance on how wide a books request can go.

An Indonesian angle

Indonesian patent law lets a patent holder claim compensation for infringement through a civil suit at the Commercial Court, but published Indonesian rulings on how to calculate an infringer's profits are scarce. We are not aware of an Indonesian decision that considers profits from substituted products in a tender. The Munich reasoning is still worth noting for medical device suppliers active in Indonesian public procurement. A bid that names a patented product may itself be treated as an infringing offer in some systems. Before bidding, suppliers should check patent coverage in Indonesia for each product they list.

Sources

• UPC Law (Bardehle Pagenberg): LD Munich, 28 October 2026, order to lay open books, UPC_CFI_1160/2026
• Unified Patent Court: order of the Munich Local Division, 28 October 2026 (PDF)
• ip fray: UPC Munich LD rejects springboard damages theory in Edwards v. Meril
• Law360: Edwards can't get "springboard" damages from Meril at UPC