Opens in a new tab

Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 14 August 2026)

Date14 August 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionBrussels (BE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1357/2025
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-0001357/2025
PartiesEstablishment Labs S.A. v. GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited, Nagor Limited, GC Aesthetics Management Limited, GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limit…

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

In an order of 14 August 2026, the judge-rapporteur of the Brussels Local Division rules, in the infringement action on EP 3 107 487 (UPC_CFI_1357/2025) and the joined counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_629/2026), on the defendants’ Rule 9 objection to Establishment Labs S.A.’s Rejoinder and on its request for further written pleadings under Rule 36. The order confirms that a Rule 36 request must be made explicitly, and that further pleadings are justified where the other side has raised new issues.

Question

On what conditions may the patentee, beyond the two rounds of written pleadings on infringement, put forward new arguments in a later pleading?

Decision

Each workflow is treated separately: on infringement, the claimant has the Statement of Claim and the Reply (Rule 12.1) (paragraph 10). The judge-rapporteur may allow further pleadings (Rules 12.5 and 36) (paragraph 11), but only on an explicit request. An “implicit” request is disregarded, since the Rules provide no such mechanism (paragraph 12). The explicit request is refused for the “Infringement” and “Relief” sections, save for paragraphs 611 to 616 on security, as the reasons given concern only the other two sections (paragraphs 17 and 18). It is granted for “Acts of Infringement” and “Jurisdiction”, which answer new issues raised by the defendants on the basis of recent case law (paragraphs 19 to 26). The reference to national law, though late, is admitted because the division may need it (paragraphs 30 and 31). A revised Rejoinder is to be filed within 16 days, and the defendants may respond by 7 September 2026, for equality of arms (paragraphs 33 to 36). Costs are reserved (paragraph 37).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 25
Rules of Procedure
Rules 9, 12.1, 12.5, 25.1, 29(d), 36, 104(e) and 333, Preamble, point 4
Case law cited
No decision is identified by date or number, the order mentions, among the new issues raised by the defendants, Dyson v Dreame, Fujifilm v Kodak and Adobe v Keeex, as well as three 2026 Court of Appeal decisions on long-arm jurisdiction.

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: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (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

  • UPC_CFI_1357/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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_1357/2025

    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 …

  2. 14 April 2026 1. GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO (CFI, 14 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1357/2025
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 14 August 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 14 August 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1357/2025
  6. 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…

  7. 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.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
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.
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, 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 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.