Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K (CFI, 23 July 2024)
| Date | 23 July 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Central Division - Section |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_36628/2024 · ORD_38648/2024 |
| Parties | ASTELLAS 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.
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
- Practical point: parties who settle before the oral procedure closes can have the action disposed of under Rule 360 RoP, without a confirmatory decision, and still obtain the partial fee refund.
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
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
Parties
- claimantASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE10 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 3 056 563mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 3 056 564mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- KraussMaffei Extrusion v TROESTER (CFI, ORD_598303/2023, 11 July 2024) cited in this record
- MSG Maschinenbau v EJP Maschinen (CFI, 11 October 2024) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.