Short Summary
Procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court joining an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation for joint hearing. Cretes NV, holder of European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152, brought an infringement action against Hyler BV, which filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of those patents. The court ordered both proceedings to be heard together under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA and Rule 37(2) RoP for reasons of efficiency and consistent patent interpretation.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued on 25 October 2024 by the Local Division Brussels of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in proceedings UPC_CFI_216/2024 (infringement action, ACT_25743/2024) and UPC_CFI_556/2024 (counterclaim for revocation, CC_53420/2024). The panel consisted of Presiding Judge and Judge-Rapporteur Samuel Granata, and legally qualified judges András Kupecz and Daniel Voss. The language of the proceedings was Dutch.
Cretes NV, based in Wevelgem, Belgium, was the claimant in the infringement action and the defendant in the revocation counterclaim. Hyler BV, based in Meulebeke, Belgium, was the defendant in the infringement action and the claimant in the revocation counterclaim. The dispute concerned two European patents held by Cretes NV: EP3993602 and EP4284152.
The court heard the parties on the procedure to be followed in light of Article 33(3) UPCA. Applying Rule 37(2) RoP, the court found it appropriate to join the main infringement claim and the counterclaim in the validity proceedings for joint hearing, citing reasons of efficiency. The court reasoned that such joint treatment would allow the parties to align their arguments on the respective claims and would promote legal certainty by ensuring a uniform interpretation of the relevant patents by the same panel. The court also noted that, absent exceptional circumstances, the parties had requested the Judge-Rapporteur to hear the main claim and counterclaim together.
Following the issuance of this procedural order under Rule 37(3) UPCA, the Judge-Rapporteur was to take the necessary steps for the allocation of a technically qualified judge. In accordance with Rule 28 RoP, the parties would be informed, after any potential Application to Amend the Patent under Rule 29(a) RoP had been addressed by the court and after hearing the parties, of the respective dates for the interim hearing and the oral hearing. The parties were requested to upload their arguments in the CMS for the two separate (but jointly heard) proceedings, even if drafted in a single document, which the panel considered appropriate.
The operative decision was that the Court of First Instance of the UPC (Local Division Brussels) ordered the claims in the infringement action (ACT_25743/2024 / UPC_CFI_216/2024) and the counterclaims in the validity action (CC_53420/2024 / UPC_CFI_556/2024) to be heard jointly pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) UPCA.
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 Cretes NV vs Hyler BV is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Gilead Sciences, Inc.vsAcademy of Military Medical Sciences
Gilead Sciences, Inc. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP3854403, owned by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (China), relating to the use of Remdesivir in treating MERS and SARS-COV-1 infections. The dispute centered on whether service of the statement of revocation on the patent's European representative (Lavoix) was valid and whether Gilead's request for default judgment was admissible. The Judge Rapporteur held that service was validly completed on 7 July 2025 when received by the patent representative in the CMS, declared the default judgment request inadmissible, and set 8 September 2025 as the deadline for the defendant to file a statement of defense.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbHvsXSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that took place before the UPCA entered into force on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and subsequent opt-in. The court held that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on pre-entry-into-force acts of use. The defendants' auxiliary request for a stay and referral to the CJEU was also rejected, and appeal was allowed.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.vsJingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
Chint appealed an order of the Munich Local Division requiring it to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000 by 6 June 2025, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of JingAo's European patent EP 2 787 541 relating to a solar cell. Chint requested that its appeal have suspensive effect or, alternatively, that the appeal proceedings be expedited. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that Chint had failed to demonstrate that providing security constituted an undue burden or that expedition was warranted.
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This order concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's request to replace three of nine members of the confidentiality club established under Rule 262A RoP in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 476 616. The defendants (Kodak entities) opposed the request, arguing that the circle of persons with access to confidential information should not be expanded. The Mannheim Local Division allowed the request in part, permitting two replacements whose substitutes already had access to confidential information from parallel proceedings, but rejecting the third replacement.
ALD France S.A.SvsNanoval GmbH & Co . KG
Anordnung
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.