UPC CFI 629/2026

At the UPC: GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited (2 cases)·Establishment Labs S.A. (3 cases)

• 2026-08-14
  Counter claim for revocationPublic

  Summary: Procedural order under R. 9 and R. 36 RoP holding the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections of LABS's rejoinder (other than paragraphs 611 to 616) inadmissible and excluding them, while allowing the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections, ordering a revised rejoinder within 16 days and extending the defendants' further pleadings deadline to 7 September 2026.

  Show the legal issues (2)

  • further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP)
  • admissibility of rejoinder sections
• 2026-06-26
  Counterclaim for revocationPublic

  Summary: The Brussels Local Division issued Order II under R.190 RoP, ordering Establishment Labs S.A. to produce evidence to the GC Aesthetics Defendants under Categories B, C, and D, timed to align with the parallel UK High Court disclosure order of 23 June 2026. The Court coordinated evidence production between UPC and UK proceedings in the interest of procedural efficiency and proportionality.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Application to produce evidence under R.190 RoP
  • Alignment of parallel national (UK) and UPC evidence production proceedings
  • Proportionality of evidence requests
  • Coordination with UK High Court disclosure proceedings (HP-2026-000009)
• 2026-06-04
  Counterclaim for revocationPublic

  Summary: The Brussels Local Division granted the claimant ESTABLISHMENT LABS leave under R.263.3 RoP to limit its infringement claim by withdrawing the UK portion against Defendants 1, 2, 4 and 10. The Court held that Defendants 2 and 10 have no legal basis remaining in the infringement action but ordered them to remain parties for costs purposes, and granted leave to appeal.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Leave to limit claim unconditionally under R.263.3 RoP
  • Interaction between R.263.3 and R.265 RoP: whether limiting an action automatically triggers R.265 RoP
  • Application of R.361 RoP: manifestly bound to fail / manifestly inadmissible
  • Costs consequences for defendants no longer pursued in infringement action
• 2026-04-14
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: The Brussels Local Division granted Defendants' R.190 RoP application for production of evidence (sales figures, physical samples, promotional materials, third-party test reports, technical specifications, performance qualification reports, regulatory documentation, and Design History File) relating to LABS's Motiva SilkSurface breast implants, while denying the request for post-priority-date physical samples (request I.c). Production is subject to a tiered compliance mechanism whereby if LABS provides pre-priority physical samples and declares prior public availability, the remaining documentary requests are waived; LABS is also ordered to pay a recurring penalty of EUR 2,000 per day of non-compliance.

  Show the legal issues (8)

  • Application to produce evidence under R.190 RoP / Art. 59 UPCA
  • Conditions for evidence production order: reasonable available evidence, specification and control, confidentiality, proportionality
  • Prior art anticipation (lack of novelty / inventive step) by Motiva SilkSurface pre-priority product
  • Unusual surface topography parameters (Sa, Ssk, Sz) at non-standard area scales
  • Premature timing of evidence production application
  • Proportionality and burden of evidence production
  • Confidentiality protection under R.262A RoP
  • Recurring penalty payments under Art. 82(4) UPCA and R.354.3 RoP
• 2026-03-18
  Public

  Summary: Brussels Local Division ordered Establishment Labs SA to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 within 21 days in both UPC_CFI_1357/2025 and UPC_CFI_629/2026 proceedings concerning EP 3 107 487 B1. The Court held that the claimant's non-EU incorporation (Costa Rica) and concerns about recoverability of a cost order justified the security requirement, rejecting other elements of the defendants' R. 158 application.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Security for costs (R. 158 RoP, Art. 69(1) UPCA)
  • Non-EU claimant enforcement risk
  • Undue burden of enforcement
  • Witness statement (R. 175.2 RoP)