Ter Meer Steinmeister & Partner Patentanwälte mbB v 2seventy bio (CFI, 23 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 23 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_2192/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Brussels Local Division dismisses the application by the patent attorney firm Ter Meer Steinmeister & Partner for access to 2seventy bio’s statement of claim on claim construction (UPC_CFI_29/2026) and to the defendants’ counterclaims for revocation (UPC_CFI_1934/2026 and UPC_CFI_1940/2026), in the dispute between 2seventy bio and the Johnson & Johnson, Janssen and Legend Biotech companies over EP 3 689 383. The order confirms that, while proceedings are pending, an adviser acting for unidentified clients does not show the specific interest required.

Question

Can a firm obtain access to pleadings in pending proceedings by relying on the interest of unnamed clients and an EPO opposition deadline?

Decision

No. Public access is the rule and restriction the exception (Arts. 10 and 45 UPCA, paragraph 7), and law firms are in principle part of the public (paragraphs 9 and 10). But while proceedings are pending, only a more specific or direct legitimate interest can outweigh the protection of the integrity of the proceedings (paragraphs 12 and 13). The applicant is neither a competitor nor a licensee and identifies no client, product or infringement allegation (paragraph 15). Nicoventures v Juul/NJOY is distinguishable, since access there was granted to an opponent party to pending EPO appeal proceedings (paragraph 16). The opposition deadline of 30 September 2026 does not establish the required interest, as no client instructing an opposition is identified (paragraph 17). The application is dismissed as unfounded.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: to obtain access to pleadings in pending proceedings, a third party should identify the client concerned and the concrete link between the case and its products or proceedings it is conducting.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 10 and 45

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.2, 220.3, 262.1(b) and 333

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Nicoventures v Juul/NJOY, Court of Appeal, 25 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_5/2025), Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, HSF v Insulet/EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 22 December 2025, Gowling v Sumi Agro/Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2026, Huawei v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Court of Appeal, 29 June 2026

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.