2026-08-14 - LD Brussels - Establishment Labs v. GC Aesthetics et al. - UPC-CFI-0000629/2026

A request for further pleadings should be explicit in accordance with R. 36 RoP.

The Brussels Local Division (Judge-Rapporteur) decided a R. 9 RoP objection by the defendants against parts of the claimant's Rejoinder and, in the alternative, the claimant's R. 36 RoP application for a further written round, in parallel infringement (UPC_CFI_1357/2025) and revocation-counterclaim (UPC_CFI_629/2026) proceedings. It held that R. 36 RoP requires a formal, explicit request: an 'implicit' request said to be contained in a pleading already filed does not exist under the Rules of Procedure and is disregarded, together with everything built on it. On the explicit application the Court decided section by section — passages answering issues, arguments and requests the defendants themselves had introduced only in their later pleadings, driven by evolving 2026 Court of Appeal case law on long-arm jurisdiction, were admitted on grounds of procedural efficiency and the right to be heard, while passages carrying new technical infringement arguments and relief were excluded because the applicant gave no reason tied to them. The Court confirmed that the national law of a non-UPC state is a factual element the invoking party must plead, since UPC judges are not taken to know it or to apply it of their own motion, but admitted the disputed national-law paragraph for procedural efficiency with a right of reply. Equality of arms was restored by permitting the defendants a further written pleading, folded into their pending Rejoinder in the amendment workflow with a five-working-day extension.