Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics Parentco (CFI, 15 January 2026)
| Date | 15 January 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Brussels (BE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Preliminary objection |
| Registry reference | UPC_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.
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
- A preliminary objection cannot be used to challenge the territorial reach of the claims where jurisdiction over the defendants is not disputed.
- An argument based on Art. 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation requires evidence of revocation proceedings brought in the state concerned.
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
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
Parties
- claimant(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimant(2) NAGOR LIMITED3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimant(3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimant(4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 3 107 487mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 14 August 2026) cited in this record
- Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 26 June 2026) cited in this record
- Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 4 June 2026) cited in this record
- 1. GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO (CFI, 14 April 2026) cited in this record
- Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics Parentco (CFI, 18 March 2026) cited in this record
- Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 28 October 2026) cites this decision
- Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 28 October 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 107 487 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 1 · Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 2 · Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 4 · Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics Parentco (CFI, 14 April 2026) · Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics Parentco (CFI, 18 March 2026) · Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 28 October · Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 28 October | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.