Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K (CFI, 21 September 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 September 2023 (UPC_CFI_75/2023, ACT_464985/2023, application 545443/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich section of the Central Division rejected a request by a third party, whose name is redacted, for copies of the Statement for revocation in Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine’s action against EP 3 056 563 held by Healios, Riken and Osaka University, and of the letter for service on the proprietor. The order, which grants leave to appeal, holds that information, education and training are not a legitimate reason under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.

Question

Does a third party relying on its own education and information about the proceedings show a sufficient reason to access the pleadings in a revocation action, and can the letter for service be made available to it?

Decision

The request must state a concrete, verifiable and legally relevant reason: access to pleadings is not a default right, since the move, during the drafting of the Rules, to an application-based system means that a third party may by default only view the register. Interests protected by Art. 58 UPCA may be at stake, hence the need for a legitimate reason that allows the balancing exercise. Education and training are not such a reason. Reading published orders and decisions serves that purpose, and the reason was not concrete enough to outweigh the commercial interests relied on by the claimant, which opposed disclosure. As for the letter for service, there is no legal basis for making it available, as it is neither a written pleading nor evidence. The judge relied on a similar order made the previous day in Amgen v Sanofi. Leave to appeal was granted.

Key points for practice

• A general interest in information or training does not suffice to obtain pleadings under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. A party’s objection based on its commercial interests weighs in the balance.
• Practical point: Registry documents such as the letter for service fall outside public access, which is limited to written pleadings and evidence.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 58 and 73(2)(b)(ii)

Rules of Procedure

Preamble (point 8), Rules 220.2, 224.1(b), 262.1(a) and (b) and 262.2

Case law cited

Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Munich Central Division, 20 September 2023

Related decisions

• Mathys & Squire v Astellas, 28 December 2023, order on another request for access to the file (Rule 262.1(b) RoP).

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.