Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 29 October 2026)

Date29 October 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionBrussels (BE) Local Division
Type of actionCounterclaim for revocation
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_629/2026
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-0000629/2026
PartiesEstablishment Labs S.A. v. GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited et 12 autres sociétés (Nagor Limited, GC Aesthetics Management Limited, GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited, GC Aesthetics (France) SAS, Eurosilicone SAS, GC Aesthetics Italy S.r.l., GC Aesthetics GmbH, GC Aesthetics Spain S.L.U., Global Consolidated Aesthetics (UK) Limited, GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited, GC Aesthetics Finance Limited, Romed N.V.)
LanguageEnglish

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 · 1 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 29 October 2026 under Rule 353 RoP (UPC_CFI_1357/2025 and UPC_CFI_629/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Brussels Local Division, seized the same day by the defendants with Establishment Labs’ agreement, rectifies para. 11 of the order of 28 October 2026: it was Establishment Labs, not the defendants, that stated that the Cereform product was not used by the defendants in the UK, and it is Establishment Labs that maintains its confidentiality argument before the UPC (not a no-confidentiality argument).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 105 and 353

Related decisions

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.


Going further

Lexicon: Confidentiality club

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
English from the language of proceedings
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_629/2026 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_629/2026

    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 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.

  3. 4 June 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 4 June 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_629/2026
  4. 26 June 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 26 June 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_629/2026
  5. 14 August 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 14 August 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_629/2026
  6. 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…

  7. 29 October 2026 Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2026, 29 October 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_629/2026

What the record states

Nature of the act
Counterclaim for revocation
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
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.
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.

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.

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.