Brussels (BE) Local Division
23 cases · page 1 of 1
GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others v.Establishment Labs S.A.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (a group of GC Aesthetics entities and Romed N.V.) for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP against the claimant Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS) in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 107 487 B1. The defendants argued that LABS, incorporated in Costa Rica, posed an enforcement risk because Costa Rica had not ratified the Hague Judgement Convention and there was no precedent for enforcing UPC costs orders there. The Court ordered LABS to provide security of €600,000 within 21 days, either by deposit into a UPC account or by bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.
GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others v.Establishment Labs S.A.
This case concerns a Preliminary Objection filed by 13 defendants associated with GC Aesthetics challenging the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) jurisdiction over alleged infringements of EP 3 107 487 B1 in non-UPC contracting states (Ireland, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). The defendants argued that the claimant, Establishment Labs S.A., relied solely on the domicile of Defendant 13 (Romed N.V.) in Belgium without evidencing any activities in non-UPC countries. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the Preliminary Objection, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction over all national designations of the European patent when at least one defendant is rightfully sued before the UPC, and that the substantive assessment of infringement in those territories belongs to the merits stage.
CooperSurgical, Inc. v.European Distribution Center Motiva BVBA, Establishment Labs S.A. and PulseLavage AB
This case concerned an infringement action filed by CooperSurgical, Inc. before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) regarding EP 3 302 292 B1. After the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent on 30 September 2025, the Claimant withdrew the action. The Court allowed the withdrawal and assessed the costs to be reimbursed to the Defendants, ordering the Claimant to pay €105,757.90 to Defendants 1-2 and €81,423.33 to Defendant 3, while also ordering reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimant.
BARCO NV v.YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
Infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827 before the Local Division Brussels. YEALINK filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. After the Court of Appeal confirmed the Brussels Local Division's territorial competence in a related cross-appeal, YEALINK withdrew its Preliminary Objection, and the Court closed the preliminary objection proceedings.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. Yealink filed a Preliminary Objection under R. 19 RoP challenging the territorial competence of the LD Brussels under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. Because the same territorial competence issue was already the subject of a cross-appeal pending before the UPC Court of Appeal in case UPC_CoA_317/2025, the Court stayed the Preliminary Objection proceedings until the Court of Appeal issues its decision, and set a schedule for post-decision comments.
Genentech, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. and N.V. Organon
This case concerns review proceedings under R. 197.3 RoP regarding orders to preserve evidence and for inspection issued ex parte in favor of Genentech and Roche concerning European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers Perjeta® (pertuzumab), a cancer medicine for HER2-positive breast cancer. Organon Heist B.V. and N.V. Organon, who were planning to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta® developed with Shanghai Henlius Biotech, sought review of these orders. The Local Division Brussels confirmed the orders, dismissed Organon's requests related to the execution of the orders as inadmissible, and established a schedule for the appointed experts to deliver their report.
Genentech, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. and N.V. Organon
This case concerns review proceedings under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure regarding two ex parte orders (an Order to Preserve Evidence and an Order for Inspection) issued on 30 May 2025 in connection with European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers Perjeta® (pertuzumab), a cancer medicine for HER2-positive breast cancer. Organon, which planned to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta® developed by Shanghai Henlius Biotech, sought review of these orders. The Local Division Brussels confirmed the orders, dismissed Organon's requests related to the execution of the orders as inadmissible, and established a schedule for the appointed experts to deliver their report and for the parties to initiate infringement proceedings.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
This case before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerned the confirmation of a settlement agreement reached between the parties in parallel infringement and validity proceedings, along with the related question of court fee reimbursement. Both parties requested 40% reimbursement of their already paid court fees of €11,000, but the court determined that each party was entitled to only €2,000, taking into account the outstanding court fees of €4,000 per party that would have become due if no settlement had been reached.
Hyler BV v.Cretes NV
This case before the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerned the confirmation of a settlement agreement reached between Hyler BV and Cretes NV in parallel infringement and invalidity proceedings concerning European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152. Both parties requested reimbursement of 40% of the already paid court fees (€4,400 each), but the court ordered reimbursement of only €2,000 each, taking into account the outstanding court fees of €4,000 per party that had not yet been paid. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered its confidentiality, and terminated the proceedings.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Defendant]
This is a definitive correction order issued by the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court on August 19, 2025, correcting a cost order (Kostenbeslissing) issued on July 25, 2025. The correction addressed a calculation error in paragraph 46 of the cost order, which had omitted the expert costs of VASQUEZ (€2,200) awarded under paragraph 36, resulting in a corrected total of €43,856.64. The court also clarified that the correction order does not suspend or affect the appeal time limits under R. 221(1) RoP.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Defendant]
This is a costs procedure decision from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 331 036. The claimants sought €92,814.62 in costs following a successful infringement action, but the court awarded only €41,656.64, applying the standard ceiling of €38,000 for representation costs due to insufficient evidence and procedural deficiencies. The court addressed key issues including the timeliness of requests to increase the cost ceiling, the burden of proof for claimed costs, and the scope of recoverable representation costs.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection concerning European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers pharmaceutical formulations of a HER2 antibody (Perjeta®). The applicants alleged that the defendants were preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®, potentially infringing the patent. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to conduct the evidence preservation and inspection at the defendants' premises, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the outcome.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (the proprietors of EP 3 401 335 B1, relating to pharmaceutical formulations of HER2 antibodies used in Perjeta®) applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection against Organon entities and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc., who are preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to inspect the defendants' premises and preserve evidence of alleged patent infringement, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the evidence obtained.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV v.Barco NV
Yealink applied for rectification of a final order issued by the Local Division Brussels on 21 March 2025 in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, seeking to amend the operative part to explicitly characterize the cost award as an 'interim award' and add a reference to Rule 211(1)(d) RoP. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the grounds for rectification under R. 353 RoP are limited to clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions, none of which were present. The Court reasoned that the order must be read as a whole, and the existing reference to R. 150(2) RoP already encompasses the concept of an interim award of costs.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Respondent]
Procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for payment of costs (€92,814.62) filed by OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV following a final decision in infringement proceedings regarding EP 2 331 036. The respondent had filed an appeal against the main decision, and the Judge-Rapporteur ordered the suspension of the costs procedure pending the outcome of the appeal, requiring the parties to inform the court once the Court of Appeal renders a decision on the merits or the dispute is otherwise terminated.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
Barco NV, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 732 827, filed an application for provisional measures against Yealink entities before the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court. The Court held that the LD Brussels was territorially competent to hear the application, but dismissed the application for provisional measures due to lack of urgency, finding that Barco had acted negligently or hesitated in seeking relief. Barco was ordered to bear the legal costs of the Yealink defendants up to the applicable ceiling of €112,000.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement action UPC_CFI_216/2024 and revocation counterclaim UPC_CFI_556/2024 relating to European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152 owned by Cretes NV. Cretes sought to strike Hyler's Rejoinder submissions filed one day late, and alternatively to strike new non-infringement arguments, a new exhibit, and a new non-infringement claim introduced by Hyler. The court dismissed the primary request to strike the entire Rejoinder but granted the subsidiary request, excluding paragraphs 506-510, exhibit I.21, and the new non-infringement claim from further consideration.
Individual Plaintiff v.OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV
The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court rejected an infringement action brought by the holder of European patent EP 2 *** (relating to mandibular advancement devices for treating obstructive sleep apnea) against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV. The court found neither literal infringement nor infringement by equivalence, as functional equivalence was lacking. The court confirmed the plaintiff had timely filed the main proceedings after obtaining evidence preservation, but lifted the preservation order and ordered the return of seized goods, with the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
Procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court joining an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation for joint hearing. Cretes NV, holder of European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152, brought an infringement action against Hyler BV, which filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of those patents. The court ordered both proceedings to be heard together under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA and Rule 37(2) RoP for reasons of efficiency and consistent patent interpretation.
Anonymous Claimant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Court of First Instance, Local Division Brussels) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 331 036. Following an Interim Conference, the court addressed settlement prospects, evidence offers, the value of the case, and guidelines for the oral hearing. The court determined the value of the case at €250,000, rejected one evidence offer as moot, and set detailed procedural directions for the upcoming oral hearing.
Nelissen v.OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV
This is a procedural decision from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning patent EP 2 331 036. The defendants (OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV) sought review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order that had permitted the claimant (Mr. Nelissen) to supplement his Reply with new facts, an equivalence-based infringement argument, and a modified petitum. The panel conducted a marginal review and confirmed the Judge-Rapporteur's decision in all respects, while granting the defendants leave to appeal.
Anonymous Claimant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP 2 331 036. The defendants filed a procedural application objecting to the claimant's inclusion of new facts, an equivalence-based infringement argument, and an adjusted petitum in the Reply to the Statement of Defence. The Judge-Rapporteur rejected the defendants' main request, holding that the amendments were consistent with the procedural-evolutionary course of litigation and the purpose of Rule 13 RoP, but granted a two-week extension for the defendants to file their Rejoinder.
Patent Holder (Mr. ***) v.OrthoApnea S.L.
The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court granted an ex parte order under Rule 192 RoP for the preservation of evidence and description of evidence in favor of the holder of European Patent EP 2 331 036 B1 (titled 'Device for treating night time breathing problems') against OrthoApnea S.L. The applicant alleged that OrthoApnea's NOA products infringed claims 1, 9, and 10 of EP 036 and sought urgent measures to seize evidence at the iBEDSSMA symposium in Knokke-Heist on September 22-23, 2023, where OrthoApnea was expected to exhibit its products as a Gold Sponsor.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.