2026-06-04 - LD Brussels - Establishment Labs v. GC Aesthetics et al. - UPC-CFI-0001357/2025

ENGLISH: 1. R. 263.3 RoP is not constructed in such a way that limiting an action (even if this has an impact on the legal standing of one or more defendants against whom no allegations have been made anymore) would automatically imply the application of R. 265 RoP. The application of R. 265 RoP necessitates a formal application as a procedural step. 2. R. 361 RoP does not oblige the Court to decide on costs

The Brussels Local Division granted the claimant unconditional leave under R. 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation of the patent. It held that a territorial limitation of an action does not automatically engage R. 265 RoP (withdrawal), which requires a separate formal application, because the action as a whole is not withdrawn. Applying R. 361 RoP, the Court held that the infringement claim against the two defendants against whom no allegations remained 'in part' lacked any foundation in law, while declining to order their dismissal from the proceedings or to decide costs at this stage. R. 361 RoP does not oblige the Court to rule on costs, which were reserved to the final costs proceedings; the defendants' allegations of procedural abuse and their request for prospective restrictions on future UPC claims were rejected as unproven and as a disproportionate interference with access to justice.