Short Summary
This case concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. EP3056563, owned by Healios K.K., Riken, and Osaka University, with Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine as the claimant. Following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024 via video conference, the judge-rapporteur issued procedural decisions on the admissibility of evidence and the value of the dispute. The court admitted a second declaration (D18) into the proceedings subject to conditions, and set the value of the dispute at 4,000,000 EUR for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs.
Detailed Summary
This proceeding is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the court, concerning European Patent No. EP3056563. The patent is owned by Healios K.K., Riken, and Osaka University. The claimant is Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine, represented by Mark Didmon of Potter Clarkson. The defendants are Healios K.K., Riken, and Osaka University, all represented by James Nicholls and Pamela Tuxworth of JA Kemp. The proceedings are conducted in English, and the deciding judge is the judge-rapporteur András Kupecz. The panel consists of Panel 1 of the Central Division (Section Munich), with Ulrike Voß (presiding judge) and Paolo Gerli (technically qualified judge) present as observers during the interim conference.
The dispute centers on the revocation of European Patent No. EP3056563. Following the Court's Rule 28 RoP order dated 25 October 2023 and the invitation to the interim conference dated 22 February 2024, an interim conference was held on 13 March 2024 by video conference pursuant to Rule 105.1 RoP. The parties appeared before the judge-rapporteur, accompanied by their respective legal representatives, technical experts, and corporate personnel. The interim conference was audio recorded in accordance with Rule 106 RoP, and participants were informed accordingly.
& Analysis
The judge-rapporteur discussed several procedural issues with the parties in preparation for the oral hearing. The parties confirmed that they maintained their requests as brought forward during the written procedure. A key issue addressed was the admissibility of the second declaration of a witness (D18). After discussion, the parties and the judge-rapporteur agreed that D18 was admitted into the proceedings on the condition that the Defendants would have until 11 April 2024 to file a succinct reply to the submission and the declaration. This reply could include a short reply expert report, the length of which should be similar to the Claimant's submissions and strictly limited to points raised in D18 and the Claimant's submission.
Final Order & Ruling
After discussion with the parties regarding the value of the dispute proceedings for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs under Rule 104(j) in connection with Rule 152.3 RoP, the judge-rapporteur set the value of the dispute at 4,000,000 EUR (four million euros). The order further addressed matters relating to costs, referencing publications by the Administrative Committee. The decisions taken at the interim conference were formally recorded in this Rule 105.5 RoP Order delivered on 18 March 2024.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section. Understanding the court's reasoning in ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE vs Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Topsoe A/SvsSYPOX GmbH a. o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1, held by Topsoe A/S, in proceedings involving inspection and preservation of evidence against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The applicant challenged the impartiality of an appointed expert, seeking to have the expert disqualified on grounds of bias. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf examined whether circumstances existed that would give a knowledgeable and reasonable observer justified doubts about the expert's impartiality or independence. The court ruled that the content of an expert report alone is insufficient to cast doubt on impartiality, and that a flawed report or lack of expertise does not indicate bias unless additional circumstances suggest a lack of objectivity.
Surf Loch LLCvsWhiteWater West Industries Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Surf Loch LLC's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in pending appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-75/2026) concerning EP 2 728 089. The court held that Surf Loch failed to demonstrate a direct interest that would outweigh the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing proceedings, as it was not involved in any current dispute concerning the patent and its reliance on terminated US IPR proceedings and abstract competitive interest was insufficient.
Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott, Abbott B.V.vsRespondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 831 282. DexCom had initiated infringement proceedings against the Abbott companies before the Paris Local Division, which were met by a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. On appeal, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and the Abbott companies withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to closure of the proceedings.
1) Koninklijke KPN N.V.vs1) Oleading B.V., 518100 Shenzhen, Guangdong Province
This order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) addressed a dispute regarding the expansion of a confidentiality club in an infringement action concerning EP2337403 and EP3944587. Oppo requested that its counsel be permitted to grant access to certain license materials to additional persons, while KPN objected to expanding the club from five to seven natural persons. The Judge-Rapporteur declined to expand the confidentiality club, finding no substantiated reason to diverge from the parallel Düsseldorf proceedings' regime, and granted limited access to two named individuals under the existing confidentiality regime.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing OyvsMicrosoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Suinno's applications for rehearing of its 12 July 2025 order and decision, which had upheld a €300,000 security for costs order and entered a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft regarding EP 2 671 173. The Court held that Suinno failed to establish a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA, as its arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the Court's reasoning rather than demonstrating a defect so serious that the same decision would not have been taken without it.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.