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 2026

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

Public figures are turning to trademark protection to combat the threat of AI deepfakes and are monetising their brand through licensing deals, a trend that law firms are keen to capitalise on
News of Avanci Video signing its first video licence and a win for patent innovators in Australia were also among the top talking points
Tom Melsheimer, part of a nine-partner team to join King & Spalding from Winston & Strawn, says the move reflects Texas’s appeal as a venue for high-stakes patent litigation
AI patents and dairy trademarks are at the centre of two judgments to be handed down next week
Jennifer Che explains how taking on the managing director role at her firm has offered a new perspective, and why Hong Kong is seeing a life sciences boom
AG Barr acquires drinks makers Fentimans and Frobishers, in deals worth more than £50m in total
Tarun Khurana at Khurana & Khurana says corporates must take the lead if patent filing activity is to truly translate into innovation
Michael Moore, head of legal at Glean AI, discusses how in-house IP teams can use AI while protecting enforceability
Counsel for SEP owners and implementers are keeping an eye on the case, which could help shape patent enforcement strategy for years to come
Jacob Schroeder explains how he and his team secured victory for Promptu in a long-running patent infringement battle with Comcast
Gift this article