Litigation
9 litigation decisions from Brussels - Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
9 cases | Page 1 of 1
2seventy bio, Inc. v.Johnson & Johnson and Others (EP 3 689 383)
This order from the UPC Local Division Brussels addressed procedural matters in consolidated proceedings concerning EP 3 689 383, a patent owned by the United States of America (NIH). The court dismissed the NIH's request to be reclassified as co-claimant in the infringement action brought by 2seventy bio, Inc. against Janssen and Legend Biotech defendants, while recognizing NIH as defendant in the counterclaims for revocation. The court also dismissed the defendants' R. 190 RoP applications to produce evidence from the NIH regarding laboratory notebooks, inventor disclosures, grant applications, and prior notice documentation.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur of the UPC Local Division Brussels following an interim conference in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. The court set the total value of the proceedings at €2.5 million (€1 million for the infringement action and €1.5 million for the counterclaim for revocation). The order also addressed procedural arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 3 November 2026, including contingencies related to BARCO's pending appeal against a prior procedural order dated 17 August 2026.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a Procedural Order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, relating to an infringement action (UPC_CFI_806/2025) brought by Barco NV against Yealink entities and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_185/2026) brought by Yealink. The order addresses procedural matters following an interim conference, including the valuation of the case, recoverable costs, the timeframe for the oral hearing, and contingencies arising from Barco's pending appeal of a prior procedural order concerning auxiliary request 6.
BARCO NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order from the UPC Local Division Brussels concerning EP 3 732 827. BARCO sought leave to amend the patent by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) following an adverse outcome at the EPO Opposition Division oral hearing. The Court dismissed BARCO's application, holding that the conditions of R. 263 RoP and R. 30 RoP were not met because the amendment could have been foreseen from the outset, BARCO failed to align its UPC and EPO proceedings in a timely manner, and there was no sufficient connection between the proposed changes and YEALINK's specific invalidity arguments.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
BARCO sought leave to amend its patent EP 3 732 827 by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) to align UPC infringement and revocation proceedings with parallel EPO opposition proceedings. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the application, holding that BARCO could have foreseen the need for amendment from the outset and failed to align its procedural strategies in a timely manner. The Court granted leave to appeal.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited et al.
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) concerns a Rule 9 application by the GC Aesthetics Defendants objecting to further written pleadings on infringement in Establishment Labs S.A.'s (LABS) Rejoinder, and an alternative Rule 36 application by LABS seeking further pleadings. The court ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections of LABS's Rejoinder (other than paragraphs 611-616) are inadmissible, but allowed the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings. LABS was ordered to file a revised Rejoinder, and the Defendants were granted an extended deadline of 7 September 2026 to include further written pleadings in their Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence of the Application to Amend the Patent.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Brussels concerns EP 3 107 487 B1, owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The Defendants (the GC Aesthetics group) filed a Rule 9 RoP application seeking to exclude certain sections of LABS's Rejoinder, while LABS filed a Rule 36 RoP application requesting further written pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections (except paragraphs 611-616) were inadmissible, but allowed the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings, ordering LABS to file a revised Rejoinder and granting the Defendants an extended deadline for further submissions.
Germany), (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) v.2SEVENTY BIO, INC.
Decision
Simmons & Simmons LLP v.Genentech Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Organon Heist B.V., and NV Organon
This order concerns an application by Simmons & Simmons LLP under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from two underlying UPC proceedings (UPC_CFI_407/2025 and UPC_CFI_408/2025) involving Genentech/Roche as claimants and Organon as defendants, which were orders to preserve evidence and for inspection concerning EP 3 401 335 B1 that were subsequently withdrawn. The Judge-Rapporteur held that while Article 45 UPCA permits confidentiality in the interest of justice, access should be granted to redacted submissions leading to the orders and review decisions, but not to information subject to an EEO-regime for which destruction/return requests were pending when the actions were withdrawn.
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.