Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K (CFI, UPC_CFI_80/2023, 11 October 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 11 October 2023 (UPC_CFI_80/2023, ORD_579545/2023, ACT_465342/2023), the judge-rapporteur of Panel 1 of the Munich Central Division (A. Kupecz), in Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine’s revocation action against EP 3 056 564 held by Healios K.K and Osaka University, ruled that the Defence to revocation is deemed served on the claimant on 29 September 2023. The notification generated by the case management system (CMS) is service, without any specific communication from the court.

Question

Was the Defence to revocation, filed on 13 September 2023 in an unsuitable CMS workflow and refiled on 29 September 2023 in the « Defence » workflow, served on the claimant in the absence of a separate communication from the court, and if so on what date?

Decision

Parties must in principle use the CMS and its dedicated workflows and bear sole responsibility for filing correctly and on time (Rule 4.1 RoP), given that the system is new, the court helps to resolve difficulties, as it did by inviting the defendants to refile, but submissions and correspondence outside the CMS should be kept to a minimum. The CMS notification is the means of electronic communication under Rule 278.1 RoP, or the relevant electronic message under Rule 271.6 RoP, which applies to pleadings through Rule 278.4 RoP, no further specific communication from the court is required, contrary to the defendants’ submission. As the claimant had taken 29 September 2023 and no objection to that date was raised, the court accepted it. The time limit for responding to the request for a stay under Art. 33(10) UPCA will be set by a separate order (App_577540/2023), panel review may be requested within 15 days (Rule 333 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: service of a pleading results from the automatic CMS notification where the filing uses the correct workflow, filing in the wrong workflow may delay the start of time limits.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(10)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 4.1, 6.1(b), 9, 32, 51, 271.6, 278.1, 278.4, 278.5 and 333

Related decisions

• Astellas v Healios, 20 November 2023, order on the request to stay pending the EPO opposition.

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.