Milan Local Division
UPC CFI NO. 202/2025
Act. no. 10936/2025
App. no 30486/2025

DECISION
concerning confirmation of settlement
issued on 5.9.2025

APPLICANT
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
represented by Siddharth Kusumakar, Bryce Matthewson and Adam Rimmer

RESPONDENTS
1) SINTEC S.R.L.
2) VALUE MED S.R.L.
represented by Giovanni Ghirardi, Francesco Banterle, Andrea Schettino, Andreas von Falck,
Roman Würtenberger and Beatrice Wilden

PATENT AT ISSUE
EP 3 646 825 B1

PANEL AND DECIDING JUDGES
Pierluigi Perrotti presiding judge and judge rapporteur
Alima Zana legally qualified judge
Margot Kokke legally qualified judge

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
English

SUMMARY OF FACTS
On 6.3.2025 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (hereinafter Edwards) filed an application for
provisional measures based on EP 3 646 825 B1 against Sintec s.r.l. and Value Med s.r.l. before
the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court.
On 24.4.2025 Respondents filed their objection to the application.
Exercising the case management powers provided for in rule 332 RoP, by order of 5.5.2025 the
judge-rapporteur invited the Parties to enter into negotiations and proposed some possible
contents of a settlement.
On 25.6.2025 Edwards filed an application informing the Court that the parties reached a
settlement - signed on 23.6.2025 - and requesting the Court (i) to confirm the settlement
agreement by decision of the Court and (ii) to grant the rembuirsement for 60% of the Court
fees.
Sintec and Value Med did not oppose Edwards’ requests, as clarified in their most recent
submissions filed on 30.7.2025.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS
The Parties jointly request that the Court (i) confirm the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit EDW-
App-1) by decision of the Court, pursuant to Art. 79 UPCA and rule 365.1 RoP; (ii) publish the
redacted copy of the Settlement Agreement in the form of Exhibit EDW-App-2 with its
decision.
In addition, pursuant to rules 370.9(c) and 370.11 RoP, Edwards requests that the Court
reimburse it for 60% of the Court fees, namely EUR 6,600.00.
GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION
Art. 79 UPCA states that “The parties may, at any time in the course of proceedings, conclude
their case by way of settlement, which shall be confirmed by a decision of the Court. [...]”.
Rule 365.1 RoP states as follows: “Where the parties have concluded their action by way of
settlement, they shall inform the judge-rapporteur. The Court shall confirm the settlement by
decision of the Court, if requested by the parties, and the decision may be enforced as a final
decision of the Court.”
Rule 11.2 RoP states that “Pursuant to rule 365 the Court shall, if requested by the parties, by
decision confirm the terms of any settlement or arbitral award by consent (irrespective of
whether it was reached using the facilities of the Centre or otherwise), including a term which
obliges the patent owner to limit, surrender or agree to the revocation of a patent or not to
assert it against the other party and/or third parties. The parties may agree on costs to be
awarded or may request the Court to decide on costs to be awarded in accordance with Rules
150 to 156 mutatis mutandis”.

In the case at hand, the Parties entered into a settlement agreement on 23.6.2025 ending the
litigation between them.
The Court has no objection to confirming this settlement agreement, which is attached to this
decision. Pursuant to rule 365.2 RoP, certain parts of the Settlement Agreement shall be kept
confidential according to the Parties’ request.
Rule 365.4 RoP states that “The judge-rapporteur shall give a decision as to costs following
the terms of the settlement or, failing that, at his discretion.”
Rule 11.2 RoP states that: “The parties may agree on costs to be awarded or may request the
Court to decide on costs to be awarded in accordance with Rules 150 to 156 mutatis mutandis”.
The Parties agreed on costs and requested no decision relating thereto.
As to the claim for reimbursement of court fees, according to Edwards, the parties reached a
settlement agreement prior to the exchange of all written submissions - and thus before the
closure of the written procedure, pursuant to rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP - because, in order no.
21229/2025, the Court had already announced that in the event that the parties were unable to
reach a settlement, it would have been necessary to authorise the exchange of further written
submissions.
The Court finds that rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP is not applicable to applications for provisional
measures, either directly or by analogy (see UPC CFI no. 500/2025, order 28 August 2025, LD
Mannheim).
The wording of the provision refers only to actions. Furthermore, the stages of the proceedings
referred to in rule 370.9(c) RoP are not applicable in proceedings concerning applications for
provisional measures. In particular, there is no interim procedure and oral hearings do not take
place in every case. Furthermore, the court fees for applications filed pursuant to rule 206 RoP
is already significantly reduced compared to that for actions. Against this background, no
further reductions are provided for or required.
An appeal against this decision may be lodged with the Court of Appeal, by any party who has
been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, within two months of the date of its
notification (Art. 73.1 UPCA, rules 220.1(a) and 224.1(a) RoP).
DECISION
At the request of the parties, the Court confirms, pursuant to rule 365.1 RoP, that the parties
have reached the following settlement
...

- this decision including only the redacted version of the settlement shall be entered on the register;
- the request for reimbursement of the court fees is dismissed;
- this decision is enforceable as a final decision of the Court.

Milan, 5 September 2025.