Pending
at Brussels (BE) Local Division
8 pending decisions from Brussels (BE) Local Division.
Pending Decisions
8 cases | Page 1 of 1
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.