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.

Date
2026-03-18
Division
Brussels (BE) Local Division
Type of action
Generic Order
Language
EN

Metadata

Case IDUPC_CFI_1357-2025-UPC_CFI_629-2026-dbb5605c4785
Case number
Registry numberUPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026
Order reference
Keywords
Headnotes

Documents and full text

Extractor: pypdf | Pages: 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 ...