Alle Fälle anzeigen
UPC CFI 2192/2026
—·EP3689383: CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTORS TARGETING B-CELL MATURATION ANTIGEN
- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartVerfahrensantragKategorieAkteneinsicht (RoP262)
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter: Christian Hollatz (Ter Meer Steinmeister & Partner Patentanwalte mbB)Beklagte
- 2seventy bio, Inc.
- Johnson & Johnson
- Janssen Biotech, Inc.
- Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.
- Janssen-Cilag International NV
- Janssen Pharmaceutica NV
- Janssen-Cilag NV
- Janssen Biologics B.V.
- Janssen-Cilag B.V.
- Janssen-Cilag GmbH
- JANSSEN-CILAG SAS
- Janssen-Cilag SpA
- Janssen-Cilag A/S
- Janssen-Cilag Aktiebolag
- Janssen-Cilag Farmaceutica Lda.
- Legend Biotech Corporation
- Legend Biotech USA Inc.
- Legend Biotech Ireland Limited
- Legend Biotech Belgium BV
Vertreter: Thomas Wolter (Mewburn Ellis LLP); Eliot Ward (Mewburn Ellis LLP); Matthew Naylor (Mewburn Ellis LLP); Pauline Debre (Linklaters LLP); Daan de Lange (Brinkhof); Andreas Obermeier (Bird & Bird LLP); Annika Luckemann (Bird & Bird LLP); Domien Op de Beeck (Bird & Bird LLP) - Division
- Brussels LD
- Richter
- Samuel Granata · rapporteur
- Technology
- Biotechnology
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 23. Juli 2026
Entscheidungen
- 2026-07-23Application RoP262.1 (b)
The Brussels Local Division judge-rapporteur dismissed as unfounded a patent firm's request under R. 262.1(b) RoP for access to the register in ongoing proceedings concerning EP 3 689 383. Because the actions are pending, a direct legitimate interest is required, and the applicant, being neither competitor nor licensee and having identified no client, product or infringement allegation, did not meet the Ocado v AutoStore threshold; the looming EPO opposition deadline did not suffice absent an instructing client. The order notes that R. 262.1(b) decisions of the judge-rapporteur are subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP and to appeal under R. 220.2 and 220.3 RoP.
Rechtsfragen:public access to the register under R. 262.1(b) RoP in ongoing proceedingsdirect legitimate interest threshold (Ocado v AutoStore; Nicoventures v Juul/NJOY)an adviser without an identified instructing client does not meet the thresholda pending EPO opposition deadline is not by itself a sufficient interestreview under R. 333 RoP and appeal under R. 220.2 and 220.3 RoP of judge-rapporteur R. 262.1(b) decisions
Dokumente
- Decision_R_262_UPC_CFI_2192-2026_Signed.pdf2026-07-23EN