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
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.