Opens in a new tab

Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics Parentco (CFI, 18 March 2026)

Date18 March 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionBrussels (BE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric Order
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1357/2025;UPC_CFI_629/2026
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_1357/2025 · UPC_CFI_629/2026
Parties(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED, (2) NAGOR LIMITED, (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, (4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED, (5) …

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 18 March 2026, made in the infringement action on EP 3 107 487 (UPC_CFI_1357/2025) and the related counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_629/2026), the Brussels Local Division ordered Establishment Labs, a Costa Rican company, to provide security of EUR 600,000 for the costs of the GC Aesthetics group defendants, which had sought EUR 1,200,000. The order clarifies the method: incorporation outside the EU and EEA goes only to whether security is ordered, and the length of enforcement is not enough on its own.

Question

Must a claimant established in Costa Rica provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP, and in what amount?

Decision

The defendants did not show that recognising and enforcing a costs decision in Costa Rica would be unduly burdensome: a legal framework exists, the duration data filed were not statistically reliable and no benchmark of reasonable duration was offered (paragraphs 18 to 29). The length of enforcement may nonetheless inform the risk of non-recovery in light of the claimant’s own finances, not those of its parent (paragraphs 31 to 33). Statements not complying with Rule 175.2 RoP remain valid but carry less weight (paragraph 34). The cost of the counterclaim for revocation, intrinsically linked to the action, is taken into account (paragraphs 36 and 37). The provisional ceiling for recoverable costs is based on the value of EUR 8,000,000 stated by the claimant, increased by 50% for the counterclaim (EUR 12,000,000), giving EUR 20,000,000 in total and a ceiling of EUR 1,200,000 (paragraphs 38 to 40). The claimant’s financial situation gives rise to a legitimate concern about recoverability, the detailed reasons being redacted in the published version (paragraphs 41 and 42). On grounds of equity and proportionality, security was set at 50% of the ceiling, EUR 600,000, the defendants’ unsubstantiated argument based on fees already invoiced being rejected. The place of incorporation goes to whether security is ordered, not to its amount (paragraphs 43 to 45). It is to be provided by deposit or bank guarantee (paragraph 46) within 21 days, failing which a default decision may be given (Rule 355 RoP).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 32(1)(e), 69(1) and (4) and 73
Rules of Procedure
Rules 104(i), 158.1, 158.3, 158.4, 175.2, 220.2, 355 and 370.6
Other texts
Hague Judgments Convention of 2 July 2019, Art. 41(1)
Case law cited
Aarke v SodaStream, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, Suinno v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 12 July 2025, Syntorr v Arthrex, Court of Appeal, 18 February 2026, AorticLab v Emboline, Court of Appeal, 20 June 2025, Audi v Network System Technologies, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, Chint v JingAo, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025, Oerlikon v Bhagat, Court of Appeal, 30 October 2025, Ballinno v Kinexon, Court of Appeal, ASUS v Guangdong OPPO, Munich Local Division, 12 December 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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

  • UPC_CFI_1357/2025 official number
  • UPC_CFI_629/2026 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

  • claimant(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED, (2) NAGOR LIMITED, (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, (4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED, (5)Follow this party
Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 18 March 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics Parentco (CFI, 18 March 2026) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_629/2026, UPC_CFI_1357/2025
  2. 14 April 2026 1. GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO (CFI, 14 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1357/2025
  3. 14 April 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics Parentco (CFI, 14 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_629/2026

    La division ordonne en partie au titulaire de produire, sous 21 jours et sous astreinte de 2 000 EUR par jour, échantillons et documents sur son implant antérieur invoqué comme antériorité, avec un mécanisme gradué et une protection de la confidentialité.

  4. 4 June 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 4 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1357/2025

    La limitation de l'action est accordée sans valoir désistement au sens de la règle 265, les deux défenderesses visées par aucune demande subsistante restent parties pour les seuls frais, et les restrictions pour l'avenir sont refusées.

  5. 4 June 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 4 June 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_629/2026
  6. 26 June 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 26 June 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_629/2026
  7. 26 June 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 26 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1357/2025

    La division refuse un échantillon supplémentaire et ordonne la production de trois catégories de documents, dans le périmètre et le délai de 28 jours convenus devant la juridiction britannique.

  8. 14 August 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 14 August 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_629/2026
  9. 14 August 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 14 August 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1357/2025

    Les sections « Infringement » et « Relief » de la duplique sont écartées, sauf sur la garantie, tandis que les sections « Acts of Infringement » et « Jurisdiction » sont admises au titre de la règle 36, les défenderesses pouvant y répondre jusqu’au 7 septembre 2026.

  10. 28 October 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 28 October 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1357/2025

    À l’issue de la conférence intermédiaire, le juge-rapporteur de la division locale de Bruxelles fixe la valeur du litige et le plafond des frais, organise la clarification des positions sur l’interprétation des revendications et la confidentialité de l’audience, et prend acte des points de compétence et de validité à d…

  11. 28 October 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 28 October 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_629/2026

    À l’issue de la conférence intermédiaire, le juge-rapporteur de la division locale de Bruxelles fixe la valeur du litige et le plafond des frais, organise la clarification des positions sur l’interprétation des revendications et la confidentialité de l’audience, et prend acte des points de compétence et de validité à d…

  12. 29 October 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 29 October 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1357/2025

    Le juge-rapporteur rectifie le point 11 de son ordonnance du 28 octobre 2026 : les déclarations sur la confidentialité des implants SilkSurface/SmoothSilk émanaient d’Establishment Labs, qui maintient son argument de confidentialité devant la JUB.

  13. 29 October 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 29 October 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_629/2026

    Le juge-rapporteur rectifie le point 11 de son ordonnance du 28 octobre 2026 : les déclarations sur la confidentialité des implants SilkSurface/SmoothSilk émanaient d’Establishment Labs, qui maintient son argument de confidentialité devant la JUB.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Establishment Labs doit fournir sous 21 jours une garantie de 600 000 euros, soit la moitié du plafond provisoire des frais remboursables calculé sur la valeur cumulée de l'action et de la demande reconventionnelle, la difficulté d'exécution au Costa Rica n'étant pas établie mais sa situation financière justifiant une inquiétude légitime.
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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 107 487Mentioned 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, 15 January 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
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.