Opens in a new tab

Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K (CFI, 23 July 2024)

Date23 July 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Central Division - Section
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_36628/2024 · ORD_38648/2024
PartiesASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 23 July 2024, the Munich Central Division (U. Voß, presiding, A. Kupecz, rapporteur, P. Gerli, technically qualified judge) disposed under Rule 360 RoP of the two revocation actions brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine against EP 3 056 563 and EP 3 056 564 of Healios, Riken and Osaka University (UPC 75/2023 and UPC 80/2023), following a settlement announced on 19 June 2024, and ordered a refund to the claimant of 20% of the court fees, EUR 4,000 in each action. The order allows the refund without any decision confirming the settlement.

Question

Does the 20% refund of court fees under Rule 370.9(c) RoP in the event of settlement require the settlement to be confirmed by a decision under Rule 365 RoP?

Decision

No. The parties may settle at any time. A confirmatory decision under Rule 365 RoP is available on request but is not required. On a joint application, the Division finds that the actions have become devoid of purpose and disposes of them by order under Rule 360 RoP. Rule 370.9(c) RoP refers to settlement in general terms, without reference to Rule 365 RoP, unlike points (a) and (b), and the refund scheme is meant to encourage early settlement, whether confirmed or not. As the settlement was reached before the closure of the oral procedure, the 20% refund is due. The order is a final decision open to appeal within two months.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts. 43, 73(1), 76(1) and 79
Rules of Procedure
Rules 11.2, 220.1(a), 224.1(a), 265, 360, 363, 365 and 370.9
Case law cited
KraussMaffei v TROESTER, Munich Local Division, 11 July 2024

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La division centrale met fin aux deux actions en nullité devenues sans objet après transaction et ordonne le remboursement de 20 % des taxes judiciaires, sans exiger de décision de confirmation au titre de la règle 365.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 056 563
Method of producing retinal pigment epithelial cell
recorded proprietor: Healios KK, RIKEN et University of Osaka NUC
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): Mathys & Squire v Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CFI, 4 · Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K (CFI, 22 Au · Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K. (CFI, 18 M · Mathys & Squire v Astellas (CFI, 28 December 2023) · Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K (CFI, UPC_C · Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K (CFI, 21 Se · Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K. (CFI, ORD_
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 3 056 564Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K (CFI, 18 Ma · Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K (CFI, 20 No · Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K. (CFI, 17 N · Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K (CFI, UPC_C · Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K. (CFI, ORD_ · Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K. (CFI, ORD_
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.