Litigation
7 litigation decisions from Brussels - Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
7 cases | Page 1 of 1
GC Aesthetics Group v.Establishment Labs S.A. (UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026)
This is a Procedural Order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 107 487 B1, owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The GC Aesthetics group of companies (Defendants in the infringement action) filed an application under R. 190 RoP seeking production of evidence from LABS related to the Motiva SilkSurface breast implants. The Court issued a conditional order granting certain evidence production requests while dismissing others, based on cumulative conditions including reasonable available evidence, specification and control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality.
Simmons & Simmons LLP (Application for Public Access under R. 262.1(b) RoP in proceedings between Genentech Inc. & F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. & NV Organon)
Simmons & Simmons LLP applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to written pleadings and evidence filed in two underlying UPC proceedings (UPC_CFI_407/2025 and UPC_CFI_408/2025) concerning EP 3 401 335 B1, involving Genentech/Roche as claimants and Organon as defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur partially granted the request, allowing access to redacted versions of certain key submissions (the original applications, review applications, and comments) while dismissing access to other documents, particularly those related to evidence preservation/inspection proceedings where no merits proceedings followed and those subject to pending destruction/return requests.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. and NV Organon
This is a procedural order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur of the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 401 335 B1. The order addresses a clerical mistake in the name of one of the representatives of Genentech & Roche in a R. 262.1.(b) RoP order issued earlier the same day. The Judge-Rapporteur directed that a new corrected order would be issued to replace the erroneous one.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV v.Barco NV (Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_2265/2025)
This is a cost decision (R. 150 RoP) of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Brussels, concerning EP 3 732 827 owned by Barco NV. Yealink sought a final cost award of €237,257.84 following preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings in which Barco's requests were dismissed for lack of urgency, though Yealink's competence challenges were also dismissed. The Court held Yealink to be a 'partly successful party,' applied the cost ceiling separately for first instance and appeal proceedings, deducted Barco's costs related to the dismissed competence challenge, excluded interpretation costs incurred under R. 109.4 RoP, and allowed recovery of travel and hotel costs.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited & Others (UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026)
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
2seventy Bio, Inc. v.Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Biotech, Inc., et al. and Legend Biotech Corporation, et al.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 689 383, owned by the United States of America. The Claimant, 2seventy Bio, Inc., filed an infringement action against Johnson & Johnson, various Janssen entities, and Legend Biotech entities, who filed counterclaims for revocation. The Court indicated its intention to hold a joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, for reasons of efficiency and to ensure uniform interpretation of the patent.
LABS v.GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED, NAGOR LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS, EUROSILICONE SAS, GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L., GC AESTHETICS GmbH, GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U., GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED, ROMED N.V.
This order concerns an application under R.190 RoP filed by the GC Aesthetics group of companies in parallel UPC infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_1357/2025) and counterclaim for revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_629/2025) against LABS regarding EP 3 107 487 B1, which relates to Motiva breast implants including the Motiva SilkSurface. The Court ordered LABS to produce extensive evidence including sales figures, physical samples, promotional materials, third-party test reports, technical specifications, regulatory documentation, and Design History Files, aligning the requests and timeframes with parallel UK disclosure proceedings. The Court imposed a recurring penalty of €2,000 per day of delay to ensure compliance.
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.