GEISTWERT Rechtsanwälte Lawyers Avvocati

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
2026-04-14
Kammer
Brussels (BE) Local Division
Verfahrensart
Infringement Action
Sprache
EN

Metadaten

Fall-IDUPC_CFI_629-2026-4d7583befd93
Aktenzeichen
RegisterzeichenUPC_CFI_629/2026
Entscheidungsreferenz
Schlagwörter
Leitsätze
_blocked_reasonchallenge_page_detected
_parsing_noticeThe server returned an interstitial/challenge page instead of the expected detail page.

Dokumente und Volltext

Textextraktion: pypdf | Seiten: 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 ...