Opens in a new tab

Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics Parentco (CFI, 15 January 2026)

Date15 January 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionBrussels (BE) Local Division
Type of actionPreliminary objection
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_1357-2025
Parties(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED / (2) NAGOR LIMITED / (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED / (4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED / …

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 15 January 2026 (UPC_CFI_1357/2025), the Brussels Local Division dismissed the preliminary objection of thirteen GC Aesthetics group companies, sued by Establishment Labs for infringement of EP 3 107 487 in thirteen countries including Ireland, Spain, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The defendants challenged the UPC’s international jurisdiction over the national validations outside the UPC. The division confirmed that the UPC can rule on infringement of all parts of a European patent and left questions on the scope of the claim to the merits.

Question

Does the UPC have jurisdiction over infringement of parts of a European patent validated outside its territory, and is that question a matter for a preliminary objection under Rule 19?

Decision

The defendants contested neither the UPC’s international jurisdiction nor the division’s territorial competence over them (paragraph 8), their failure to object amounts to a submission within Rule 19.7 and Art. 26(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation (paragraph 9). According to settled case law, the UPC may rule on infringement of all parts of a European patent, including in non-UPC states (paragraph 10). As no national validity proceedings were shown, the exclusive jurisdiction under Art. 24(4) did not prevent the assessment of infringement (paragraph 11). Whether any acts infringe, and under which law, are merits questions (paragraph 12). Costs will be decided on the merits (paragraph 13).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts 31, 32(1)(a) and 33(1)(a) and (b)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 19, 19.7 and 20.1
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012
Arts 4(1), 24(4) and 26(1)
Case law cited
review order of 18 August 2025, UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Local and central divisions (UPC).

Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction, Valeo v. Bosch and the Redistribution of Cases Within the UPC (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Preliminary objection
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
L'exception préliminaire est rejetée : la JUB peut statuer sur la contrefaçon des parties hors JUB du brevet européen, et l'existence d'actes de contrefaçon dans ces États relève du fond.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.