Brussels (BE) Local Division
23 cases · page 1 of 1
GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED et al. v.ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
In this procedural order concerning a costs request, the UPC Local Division addressed the financial concerns of ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A., the respondent in an infringement action involving EP 3 107 487 B1. The court determined that while the claimant's financial situation was considered, security for costs was necessary to protect the rights of the defendants. Consequently, ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A. was ordered to deposit €600,000 within 21 days.
ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A. v.GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED et al.
In this preliminary objection case, Establishment Labs S.A. sued GC Aesthetics Group and its affiliates for infringing EP 3 107 487 B1 related to the Perle implant across multiple jurisdictions, including non-UPC states like Ireland and the UK. The Defendants challenged the UPC's jurisdiction over these national designations. The Local Division of Brussels dismissed the objection, affirming that the UPC possesses international jurisdiction over all parts of a European patent when one defendant is properly sued. This ruling clears the path for the merits phase to determine infringement across all claimed territories.
BARCO NV v.YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
This UPC decision concerns the dismissal of a Preliminary Objection filed by YEALINK against BARCO NV. YEALINK had challenged the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division, but following a favorable ruling from the Court of Appeal confirming jurisdiction, YEALINK voluntarily withdrew its objection. The court subsequently closed the proceedings based on this withdrawal, allowing the main infringement case to proceed.
CooperSurgical, Inc. v.European Distribution Center Motiva BVBA; Establishment Labs S.A.; PulseLavage AB
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 302 292 B1, the infringement action brought by CooperSurgical was withdrawn with the consent of the Defendants. The Court then issued a comprehensive cost decision that significantly favored the Defendants. Despite the withdrawal, the Claimant was ordered to pay over €187,000 in costs and expenses to the defendants, although they were granted reimbursement for 60% of their court fees.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Brussels stayed a Preliminary Objection raised by Yealink regarding its territorial competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. The Court recognized that the exact same issue is currently pending before the UPC Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_317/2025). This decision ensures procedural economy and prevents contradictory findings between the first instance and appellate courts. Practitioners should note how the UPC manages overlapping jurisdictional challenges across different court levels.
Organon Heist B.V. v.Genentech, Inc.
This UPC Local Division order addresses the review of prior 'ex parte' orders for evidence preservation and inspection concerning EP 3 401 335 B1. The court provided crucial procedural guidance, outlining a rigorous two-step assessment process for reviewing these types of orders under R. 197.3 RoP. It also clarified the legal standard required to prove 'about to be infringed' in relation to subsequent infringement proceedings. This decision is highly significant for practitioners managing evidence gathering and risk assessment within the UPC framework.
Organon Heist B.V. v.Genentech, Inc.
This UPC Local Division order addresses the procedural framework for reviewing prior 'ex parte' orders related to evidence preservation and inspection in a pharmaceutical patent case (EP 3 401 335 B1). The court detailed a rigorous two-stage review process, ensuring that both initial applications and all subsequent party submissions are considered when assessing the validity of the original order. Crucially, the ruling clarified the legal threshold for 'about to be infringed,' setting a high bar requiring demonstrable risk of future infringement. This decision provides significant guidance on managing evidence gathering in complex UPC litigation.
Hyler BV v.Cretes NV
This decision from the Brussels Local Division confirms a settlement agreement reached between Hyler BV and Cretes NV, effectively ending both the infringement and validity proceedings. The court formally validated the terms of the settlement regarding cost distribution. Crucially, it ordered each party to receive a refund of €2,000 related to the termination of their respective actions.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
This decision from the Brussels Local Division confirms a settlement agreement between Cretes NV and Hyler BV, thereby terminating both the infringement and validity proceedings. The court also addressed the complex issue of cost allocation following the mediation, confirming the parties' agreement on how costs would be distributed. This case highlights the practical application of UPC rules regarding settlements (R. 365) and the subsequent recovery or reduction of judicial fees.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Vivisol B BV
This UPC decision addressed a request for improvement regarding the costs awarded in an earlier proceeding. The court found and corrected a clear arithmetic error in the calculation of the total costs payable by the respondent. While affirming the principle that R. 353 RoP is limited to factual/mathematical corrections, the ruling successfully adjusted the financial outcome based on the identified mistake.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.De heer [Name redacted]
This UPC decision addressed a complex costs procedure initiated by OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV against an individual respondent. The claimants sought to significantly increase the recoverable costs beyond the administrative ceiling of €38,000 due to high actual expenses. The Court partially granted the claim, setting the final cost award at €41,656.64 by applying its discretion within the established ceilings for representation and expertise. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding costs and the limits set by administrative decisions in UPC proceedings.
Genentech Inc. v.F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG, Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division granted an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection in the dispute concerning EP 3 401 335 B1. The case involves Genentech/Roche against Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech regarding biosimilars of the cancer drug Perjeta®. This decision allows the Applicants to secure critical information necessary for their claims, highlighting the UPC's proactive role in managing complex pharmaceutical litigation.
Genentech Inc. v.F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG, Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
In this significant pharmaceutical dispute, Genentech and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG sought urgent procedural measures against Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc. The UPC Local Division granted both an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection concerning the patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers the cancer medicine Perjeta®. This decision is a critical step in securing necessary data for the ongoing litigation regarding biosimilar launch (HLX11).
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. v.Barco NV
Yealink filed an application seeking to rectify a previous Final Order concerning legal costs in the UPC case against Barco. Yealink argued that the original order was flawed regarding the cost award amount. However, the Local Division Brussels dismissed the rectification request, holding that the initial decision was legally sound and consistent. This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of R. 353 RoP, emphasizing that procedural corrections must be limited to clear errors rather than re-evaluations of legal reasoning.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Vivisol B BV
This UPC decision concerns a request for costs determination in the context of an ongoing infringement case. The court suspended the cost procedure because the defendant had filed an appeal against the initial ruling. This highlights the principle that final cost allocation must wait until the main dispute is definitively resolved by the appellate body, ensuring legal certainty and preventing fragmented judgments.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
Barco N.V. sought provisional measures against Yealink entities regarding the European patent EP 3 732 827. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the application, finding that there was no sufficient urgency to warrant preliminary relief. While denying the injunction, the court clarified several important procedural matters, including its own territorial competence and the cumulative nature of requirements for granting provisional measures. This decision serves as a reminder to applicants that demonstrating immediate necessity is paramount in urgent UPC proceedings.
CRETES NV v.HYLER BV
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Brussels addressed a request by CRETES NV to exclude specific new arguments and claims introduced by HYLER BV into ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings. The Court partially granted the request, agreeing to exclude detailed non-infringement arguments and related documents from consideration. This ruling highlights the court's power to manage case complexity and maintain procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
De heer v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
In this UPC case, the court addressed a claim of infringement related to Mandibular Advancement Devices (MAD). The claimant sought relief against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV regarding patents covering these medical devices. The court ultimately dismissed both the literal and equivalent infringement claims. This decision reinforces established principles regarding patent scope interpretation under Article 69 EPC, particularly emphasizing that functional equivalence is necessary for an equivalence finding.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division (Brussels) consolidated an infringement action brought by Cretes NV against Hyler BV with Hyler's counterclaim for patent invalidity. The court ruled that joint treatment of these proceedings is necessary to enhance efficiency and ensure consistent interpretation of the patents by the same judicial panel. This order sets the stage for the substantive hearing, where both infringement and validity will be examined simultaneously.
Unspecified Claimant v.OrthoApnea S.L.
This procedural decision in the UPC infringement case involving EP 2 331 036 sets the stage for the main hearing. The court formally established the value of the dispute at €250,000 and provided comprehensive guidelines for the oral proceedings. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the financial parameters and procedural expectations for both parties moving into the evidentiary phase.
Unnamed individual residing in Belgium v.OrthoApnea S.L.
This UPC Local Division Brussels order addressed a procedural challenge brought by OrthoApnea S.L. against an earlier interim decision concerning claim amendments and deadlines in an infringement action related to EP 2 331 036. The court rejected the request for partial review, upholding the Judge-Rapporteur's initial ruling that allowed certain procedural adjustments while maintaining strict control over the case timeline. This highlights the UPC's rigorous approach to managing complex litigation and limiting opportunities for extensive procedural delays.
Individual (unnamed) v.OrthoApnea S.L.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Brussels addressed an objection raised by OrthoApnea S.L. against the claimant's ability to amend their infringement case. The court rejected the respondents' attempt to block the addition of new facts and arguments based on equivalence. This decision reinforces that while initial pleadings are crucial, the procedural rules allow for necessary adjustments during litigation, provided they maintain coherence with the ongoing proceedings.
De heer v.OrthoApnea S.L.
In a time-sensitive UPC proceeding, the local division in Brussels granted an urgent request for provisional measures concerning EP 2 331 036. The claimant sought to preserve evidence of infringement by OrthoApnea's NOA product ahead of a major medical symposium. Recognizing the imminent loss of evidence and the urgency, the court allowed the protective measures without hearing the defendant, thereby securing the necessary documentation and products for future litigation.
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.