Litigation
6 litigation decisions from Brussels - Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
6 cases | Page 1 of 1
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This procedural order concerns BARCO NV's application to amend its case by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6, corresponding to AR PO-3D from EPO opposition proceedings) in its infringement action against Yealink entities regarding EP 3 732 827. The application was filed on 4 August 2026 following the EPO Opposition Division's oral hearing on 17-18 June 2026, where BARCO defended the patent on the basis of newly introduced auxiliary requests not previously filed in the UPC proceedings. The Court addressed whether BARCO should be permitted to amend its case at this late stage, considering principles of procedural efficiency and the interplay between UPC and EPO proceedings.
BARCO NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This procedural order concerns BARCO NV's application to amend European Patent EP 3 732 827 by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) in UPC infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_806/2025) and related counterclaim for revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_185/2026) brought by Yealink. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the application, holding that the amendment could have been foreseen from the outset, that BARCO failed to abide by principles of procedural efficiency, and that BARCO did not sufficiently demonstrate the connection between the proposed changes and Yealink's specific invalidity arguments. The Court granted leave to appeal.
(2) NAGOR LIMITED, (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED v.Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP
This procedural order concerns a Rule 9 and Rule 36 RoP application in proceedings involving EP 3 107 487 B1, a patent owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The Defendants (a group of GC Aesthetics entities) sought to exclude certain sections of LABS's Rejoinder dated 30 July 2026, while LABS requested further written pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections (other than paragraphs 611-616) were inadmissible, but allowed the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings, and granted the Defendants an opportunity to file further written pleadings.
(2) NAGOR LIMITED, (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED v.Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP
This procedural order concerns a Rule 9 and Rule 36 RoP dispute in proceedings involving EP 3 107 487 B1, owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The Defendants (GC Aesthetics group entities) objected under Rule 9 RoP to sections of LABS's Rejoinder dated 30 July 2026 that addressed 'Infringement', 'Acts of Infringement', 'Jurisdiction' and 'Relief', arguing they were inadmissible. LABS countered that these sections constituted an implicit or explicit Rule 36 RoP request for further written pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections (except paragraphs 611-616) were inadmissible, while allowing the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings.
Germany), (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) v.2SEVENTY BIO, INC.
In this legal proceeding before Brussels - Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-23) under reference UPC_9FF93D3A0F, Germany), (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) appeared in dispute with 2SEVENTY BIO, INC. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
O.V. Lamme v.Respondent
In this legal proceeding before Brussels - Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-04) under reference UPC_ADC6CCA645, O.V. Lamme appeared in dispute with Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.