Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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?


Jean‐Jacques Canonici

Gevers & OresHolidaystraat, 5B-1831 Diegem - BrusselsBelgiumTel: +32 2 715 37 11Fax: +32 2 715 37

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library