Belgium: Defensive actions in UPC and national courts

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Belgium: Defensive actions in UPC and national courts

The opt‐out possibility offered by Article 83 UPCA pays lots of attention to the choices patentees are facing with regards to their filing strategy. We focus here on defensive strategies in the new legislative framework, in particular on actions before national courts.

Coexistence between the UPC and national jurisdictions during the transitional period is governed by the UPCA and by the Brussels Regulation (Recast) (EU) 1215/2012.

Article 83.3 UPCA establishes the right to opt‐out (completely) of the UPC.

Article 83.4 UPCA further stipulates that unless an action has already been brought before a national court, proprietors of or applicants for European patents who made use of the opt‐out in accordance with paragraph 3 shall be entitled to withdraw their opt‐out at any moment.

Thus, if an invalidity action before a national court exists, patentees will not be able to use the UPC at all, including an infringement action.

Is such a legal effect compatible with the Brussels Regulation? Not sure. It is true that under the Regulation, the court first seized retains jurisdiction when the same action, involving the same parties, is subsequently filed in another EU court. Consequently, the existence of an invalidity action in a national court should not prevent the use of the UPC for an infringement action.

In any event, Article 83 deals with the specific opt‐out context. But what about the more general context, namely the impact of an existing action before a national court, where no opt‐out has been requested?

Furthermore, what is the impact of actions before national courts pending at the time of the UPC inception?

These uncertainties make it difficult for parties to implement a defensive strategy. Is it worth investing in an invalidity action in a national court, before entry into force of the UPC? Assuming such an action impacts patentees' choices at all, will it completely prevent the use of the UPC or only preclude the use of the UPC for a nullity action?

Canonici

Jean‐Jacques Canonici


Gevers & OresHolidaystraat, 5B-1831 Diegem - BrusselsBelgiumTel: +32 2 715 37 11Fax: +32 2 715 37 00www.gevers.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the Australian Taxation Office was advised by Australian-headquartered law firm MinterEllison
The firm said revenue from its ‘refreshed and expanded’ IP team increased by 4% in FY25
As revenue reporting season hits full stride, firms have made a point of highlighting the successes of their IP teams as they take centre stage in big-ticket work
GSK and CureVac will together receive $740 million, as well as royalties on sales of COVID-19 vaccines in the US
The firm, which represented Getty in one of the most closely followed copyright cases in recent years, said IP was among its standout practice areas
The decision to divide was partly due to differing visions over the impact of technology on IP work, according to one partner
The Bar Council of India’s warning to Dentons Link Legal and CMS IndusLaw shows why foreign firms are right to worry about India’s legal market
News of a trade secrets leak involving TSMC and an action in Japan against AI startup Perplexity were also among the top talking points
Rothwell Figg partner Leo Loughlin discusses the importance of pro bono work and why ‘For the Kids’ should not be monopolised for trademark purposes
A new consultancy firm, set up by a former Warner Bros and Netflix lawyer, aims to resolve tensions between AI developers and the creative industries
Gift this article