GEISTWERT Rechtsanwälte Lawyers Avvocati

UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026

(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.

Datum
2026-03-18
Kammer
Brussels (BE) Local Division
Verfahrensart
Generic Order
Sprache
EN

Metadaten

Fall-IDUPC_CFI_1357-2025-UPC_CFI_629-2026-dbb5605c4785
Aktenzeichen
RegisterzeichenUPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026
Entscheidungsreferenz
Schlagwörter
Leitsätze

Dokumente und Volltext

Textextraktion: pypdf | Seiten: 14

Brussels - Local Division UPC_CFI_1357/2025 UPC_CFI_0629/2026 Procedural Order (R.158 RoP)(II) of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued on 18 March 2026 Concerning EP 3 107 487 B1 HEADNOTES 1. While the place of incorporation and registration of the claimant could be a relevant factor in assessing a request for security, its relevance should be determined by establishing whether "similar or identical" guarantees are in place for recognising and enforcing a UPC costs order in the foreign (non -EU/EEA) state (cf. Chint v JingAO headnotes). Therefore, this factor is relevant to the decision of whether or not to grant security, rather than to the decision on the amount of the security. 2. When arguing that the recognition and/or enforcement proceedings of UPC cost s or ...