Partially Granted
at Brussels (BE) Local Division
4 partially granted decisions from Brussels (BE) Local Division.
Partially Granted Decisions
4 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.
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.
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.
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.