Executive Summary
In this preliminary objection case, Establishment Labs S.A. sued GC Aesthetics Group and its affiliates for infringing EP 3 107 487 B1 related to the Perle implant across multiple jurisdictions, including non-UPC states like Ireland and the UK. The Defendants challenged the UPC's jurisdiction over these national designations. The Local Division of Brussels dismissed the objection, affirming that the UPC possesses international jurisdiction over all parts of a European patent when one defendant is properly sued. This ruling clears the path for the merits phase to determine infringement across all claimed territories.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the assessment of alleged infringement in non-UPC states (such as Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, and the UK) is part of the merits assessment and not relevant to a Preliminary Objection under Rule 19 RoP. The UPC has international jurisdiction over all parts of a European patent if one defendant is properly sued before it.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Brussels (BE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A. vs GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
ZTE CorporationvsSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed requests from Samsung (Defendants) to introduce new evidence and pleadings related to ongoing license negotiations and third-party agreements. The Court dismissed the broad requests for further written submissions and production orders, citing concerns over 'ping-pong' effects and the timing of the evidence. However, recognizing the dynamic nature of FRAND licensing, the Court granted a limited window for parties to submit briefs on new developments before the oral hearing, ensuring that all relevant facts can be considered during the merits phase.
ArcelorMittalvsXPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Sweden) AB, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS (Danemark) ApS, EJNER HESSEL A/S
This procedural order addressed POSCO's request to access confidential pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against the XPENG group. POSCO sought access to inform its parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO regarding patent EP3290200, which is central to both actions. The Court ultimately granted limited access, recognizing that claim interpretation must be consistent across both infringement and revocation proceedings, while maintaining confidentiality for sensitive technical exhibits.
Ona Patents SLvsGoogle Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf halted proceedings to address critical deficiencies in the Claimant's evidence regarding patent ownership. The court found that the documentation supporting various assignments and authorizations was confusing or incomplete, particularly concerning retroactive approvals. This ruling underscores the necessity for claimants to provide a clear, legally sound chain of title when asserting infringement rights under the UPC.
Docket NavigatorvsSumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited; Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by the litigation intelligence platform, Docket Navigator, seeking access to confidential written pleadings and evidence in an concluded case. The court ruled that the commercial interest of making these documents available to subscribers does not meet the threshold for protection under Article 45 UPCA. Furthermore, the requirement for representation was deemed essential to safeguard procedural integrity. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining judicial confidentiality unless a legitimate public interest is demonstrated.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.vsAmazon.com, Inc.
In a significant ruling concerning SEP licensing and anti-suit injunctions, the UPC Local Division Mannheim confirmed an order preventing Amazon from pursuing contractual claims in UK courts. The applicants (InterDigital) successfully defended their attempt to enforce measures designed to ensure that patent infringement proceedings before the UPC are not undermined by external legal actions. This decision reinforces the UPC's jurisdiction and its ability to manage complex cross-border disputes involving standard-setting organizations.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.