Mathys & Squire v Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CFI, 4 November 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 4 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_75/2023, ACT_464985/2023), the Munich Central Division (U. Voß, presiding, A. Kupecz, rapporteur, and P. Gerli, technically qualified judge), in the revocation action against EP 3 056 563 brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine against Healios, Riken and Osaka University, granted Mathys & Squire, a non-party, access to the unredacted version of two pleadings (Reply of 29 November 2023 and Rejoinder of 29 December 2023). The order shows that redactions not justified in good time will not withstand an access request from a member of the public.

Question

Should information redacted by the claimant, concerning its product pipeline timeline and filed in support of its position on the value of the dispute, remain confidential vis-à-vis the third party seeking access?

Decision

Access to the pleadings had been granted on 22 August 2024 under Rule 262.1(b), but only redacted versions of the two documents were released. The application meets the formal requirements of Rule 262.4 and is admissible. Following the Court of Appeal in Ocado v Autostore, the Court weighs the applicant’s interest in access only against the party’s legitimate interest in confidentiality. Once the applicant credibly sets out its reasons, the party claiming confidentiality must rebut them with substantiation, an approach the Court applies by analogy with a Court of Appeal order on security for costs. The claimant did not show that the information remained confidential and, invited to comment by the preliminary order of 8 October 2024, added nothing, the defendants did not respond. The balance favours the third party, and the Registry is instructed to release the full versions.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party redacting information must substantiate its confidentiality when a third party seeks access, otherwise the full version will be released.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 45

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.1(b), 262.2, 262.3, 262.4, 262.5 and 262.6

Case law cited

Ocado Innovation v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, UPC_CoA_217/2024 (security for costs), Astellas v Healios, Munich Central Division, 22 August 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.