UPC_CFI_1357/2025

1. GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED 2. NAGOR LIMITED 3. GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED 4. GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED 5. GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS 6. EUROSILICONE SAS 7. GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L. 8. GC AESTHETICS GmbH 9. GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U. 10. GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED 11. GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED 12. GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED 13. ROMED N.V. v. ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.

Date
2026-04-14

Division
Brussels (BE) Local Division

Type of action
Infringement Action

Language
EN

Metadata

Case ID	UPC_CFI_1357-2025-13c76994af90
Case number
Registry number	UPC_CFI_1357/2025
Order reference
Keywords
Headnotes
_blocked_reason	challenge_page_detected
_parsing_notice	The server returned an interstitial/challenge page instead of the expected detail page.

Case ID

UPC_CFI_1357-2025-13c76994af90

Case number

Registry number

UPC_CFI_1357/2025

Order reference

Keywords

Headnotes

_blocked_reason

challenge_page_detected

_parsing_notice

The server returned an interstitial/challenge page instead of the expected detail page.

Documents and full text

UPC document

Extractor: pypdf | Pages: 26

Brussels - Local Division UPC_CFI_1357/2025 UPC_CFI_629/2025 Procedural Order (R.190 RoP) of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued on 14 April 2026 Concerning EP 3 107 487 B1 HEADNOTES When assessing an application to produce evidence (R. 190 RoP application), the Court must consider the following cumulative conditions (cf. LD The Hague Order of 14 October 2024 in the case of Winnow v Orbisk, § 8, as further developed): 1. The requesting party must have presented evidence “ reasonably available ” in support of its claims. The assessment of this condition is prima facie and twofold: (a) Did the requesting party present “reasonable available” evidence to support its underlying assertions? (b) As an implied condition, could the requested evidence enable the requesting ...