UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 2192/2026

EP3689383 Unitary patent · CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTORS TARGETING B-CELL MATURATION ANTIGEN

Case details
Status
—
Action
Procedural application
Category
File-access requests (R. 262.1(b))
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Brussels LD
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Biotechnology · Pharmaceuticals
Language
—
First decided
Jul 23, 2026
EPO Opposition
  • Boult Wade Tennant LLPAdmissible2025-12-31
  • Legend Biotech Ireland LimitedAdmissible2026-09-29
  • STRAWMAN LIMITEDAdmissible2026-09-29
  • Lang, SvenAdmissible2026-09-30
  • Keltie LLPAdmissible2026-09-30
  • Hampton Knowles LimitedAdmissible2026-09-30
  • Janssen Pharmaceutica NVAdmissible2026-09-30
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Brussels LDLocked
Judge Samuel GranataLocked

At the UPC: TER MEER STEINMEISTER & PARTNER PATENTANWALTE MBB (0 cases)·Janssen Group (11 cases)

2 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 29/2026·UPC CFI 1940/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Brussels LD·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-07-23
    Application RoP262.1 (b)Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • public access to the register under R. 262.1(b) RoP in ongoing proceedings
    • direct legitimate interest threshold (Ocado v AutoStore; Nicoventures v Juul/NJOY)
    • an adviser without an identified instructing client does not meet the threshold
    • a pending EPO opposition deadline is not by itself a sufficient interest
    • review under R. 333 RoP and appeal under R. 220.2 and 220.3 RoP of judge-rapporteur R. 262.1(b) decisions
Documents
  • Decision_R_262_UPC_CFI_2192-2026_Signed.pdf2026-07-23EN