LD Brussels, August 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.

Explore Firm Details

The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order addressing the admissibility of further written pleadings in a patent infringement dispute between Establishment Labs S.A. and GC Aesthetics entities concerning European Patent EP 3 107 487. The order examines procedural rules governing additional submissions in both the main infringement action and the related counterclaim for revocation, with considerations of accessory liability under multiple national jurisdictions.

Belgium Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Technology topic(s)

Key takeaways

A request for further pleadings must be explicit — hints inside a pleading are not enough

LABS answered the Defendants’ new arguments directly inside its Rejoinder, without filing a formal request at that point.
The Court said this does not count. R. 36 RoP needs a clear, stand-alone request. There is no such thing as an “implicit” one.
Practical point: always file a separate R. 36 RoP request if you want to respond in writing to new arguments. Don’t assume that answering the point inside your next pleading will be read as a request.

Flexible case management has limits — it only works through two specific doors

The rules let judges organise proceedings efficiently, but that flexibility must stay balanced and fair between the parties.
The Court can only allow extra pleadings in two ways: an explicit party request under R. 36 RoP, or the Judge-Rapporteur’s own initiative at the interim conference under R. 104(e) RoP.
Take note: if you missed the moment for a R. 36 RoP request, don’t count on general discretion to save you. Ask for the point to be raised at the interim conference instead.

New arguments or case law from the other side can open the door to a written reply

The Defendants relied, for the first time in their own filings, on several 2026 Court of Appeal rulings on long-arm jurisdiction and on a request for a stay and a preliminary ruling.
The Court allowed LABS to respond in writing on the matching sections, reasoning that written submissions are more efficient than leaving the debate for the oral hearing.
It also refused to split apart two sections that were factually and legally linked to the same jurisdiction argument.
Practical point: if the other side leans on brand-new case law, you have a solid basis to request a written reply — even late in the proceedings. And if two sections of your pleading are genuinely intertwined, say so clearly to avoid an artificial split.

Plead your legal theory — and any foreign law it depends on — as early as possible

LABS had used loose, “catch-all“ language early on to describe one defendant’s alleged liability, and only introduced supporting foreign national law much later, in reply to an old objection.
The Court tolerated the loose wording at this stage, but flagged the late national law reference as risky, since foreign law counts as a fact a party must prove, not something the Court applies on its own.
Practical point: name your legal theory and any foreign law you rely on in your first substantive pleading. Waiting until later, even to answer an objection, risks a finding that you missed your burden of proof.

Expect a clean refiling and a short extension, not a whole new round of pleadings

Where sections were struck, the Court ordered a “clean“ revised pleading, and gave the other side a modest extension folded into its already-scheduled next filing.
The refiling duty disappears if a party asks for panel review, since the panel would need to see the excluded material anyway.
Strategic warning: weigh panel review carefully. It removes the refiling duty but exposes your full, unredacted text to the panel.

Division

Local Division Brussels

UPC number

UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026

Type of proceedings

Procedural order on admissibility of further written pleadings (R. 9 RoP and R. 36 RoP) in a main infringement action and a related counterclaim for revocation

Parties

Claimant (infringement action) / Defendant (counterclaim for revocation): Establishment Labs S.A. (“LABS”)

Defendants (infringement action) / Claimants (counterclaim for revocation): GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited, Nagor Limited, GC Aesthetics Management Limited, GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited, GC Aesthetics (France) SAS, Eurosilicone SAS, GC Aesthetics Italy S.R.L., GC Aesthetics GmbH, GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U., Global Consolidated Aesthetics (UK) Limited, GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited, GC Aesthetics Finance Limited, Romed N.V.

Patent(s)

EP 3 107 487

Jurisdictions

UPC (with reference to national law of Ireland, Norway, Spain and Switzerland regarding alleged accessory liability)

Body of legislation / Rules

R. 9 RoP, R. 36 RoP, R. 12.1 RoP, R. 12.5 RoP, R. 25.1 RoP, R. 29(d) RoP, R. 104(e) RoP, R. 333 RoP, Preamble RoP / Art. 41(3), 42, 52(1) UPCA, Art. 25 UPCA, Art. 267 TFEU, Art. 54 UPCA

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]