Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 28 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 1 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 28 October 2026 under Rule 105 RoP (UPC_CFI_1357/2025 and UPC_CFI_629/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Brussels Local Division followed up on the interim conference held by videoconference on 27 October 2026 in Establishment Labs’ action for infringement of EP 3 107 487 B1, which concerns implants, and in the counterclaim for revocation.

Facts and procedure

Establishment Labs is suing thirteen GC Aesthetics group companies. The order sets the value of the infringement action at EUR 8 million and of the counterclaim at EUR 12 million, EUR 20 million in total, and the ceiling for recoverable costs at EUR 1.2 million. The parties must state by 16 November 2026 whether they agree on costs. Open points are the possible reduction because defendants 2 and 10 are not parties to the main action, and the position of Establishment Labs, which stated that it provisionally does not pursue defendants 11 and 12; it will have to say at the hearing whether it maintains its claim against them.

Decision

The judge-rapporteur invites the parties to clarify their claim-construction positions by 12 November 2026 (five pages maximum), to file visual aids by 25 November and to state by 30 November which parts of the hearing should be held in camera. The decision will first be issued under confidentiality code “M”, the parties having 48 hours to indicate the passages to be redacted before the public version; a preliminary non-binding opinion may be given at the start of the hearing, but not in writing beforehand.

On validity (novelty, inventive step, added matter, sufficiency), the judge-rapporteur asked Establishment Labs about its position on the confidentiality of SilkSurface/SmoothSilk implants sold before the priority date, an argument dropped in the UK proceedings for cost reasons, and stressed the resulting divergence in the factual basis of the UK and UPC assessments. On international jurisdiction, the parties must take a conclusive position on whether the issue can still be raised in view of Rule 19.7 RoP and Article 26(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation and, if so, clarify the anchor defendant(s), the applicable articles and the law governing joint liability.

Key points for practice

• The costs ceiling is set on the combined value of the action and the counterclaim.
• A position dropped in the UK (confidentiality of a prior disclosure) may be maintained before the UPC.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.7, 104 and 105

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I recast)

Article 26(1)

Related decisions

• Brussels Local Division, 14 August 2026, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics: order on the rejoinder.
• Brussels Local Division, 15 January 2026, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics: preliminary objection dismissed.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 1 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.