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

Cookies Settings

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

François Pochart, Grégoire Desrousseaux and Lionel Martin, long-standing figures in the firm’s patent litigation team, are set to help launch a Paris-based litigation offering
The Unitary Patent has passed 100,000 registrations, but new data raises the question of whether 30% uptake is a ceiling or a staging post for further growth, say Michael Nielsen and Darren Smyth of EIP and Andrew Samm at Patently
The new generation of in-house IP leaders want commercial judgment, accessibility and flexibility, with AI raising expectations around both fees and delivery
The firm launched a San Diego office earlier this month, but California investment and expansion is far from complete
The industry’s response to AI requires an unfamiliar ingredient as firms battle to shape their futures
The firm is looking beyond replacing recently departed talent, betting instead on senior leaders to strengthen and expand its patent litigation platform
Olga Partington, director in Sterne Kessler’s biotechnology and chemical practice group, shares why a patent's vulnerability peaks when it is young, rather than when it is most valuable, under the PTAB's new framework
IP experts gathered in San Francisco last week to discuss the changing global SEP landscape and new licensing models for AI infrastructure
SKW Schwarz partner Daniel Kendziur explains how new green claims rules are changing his workload and bringing him into direct contact with marketing, PR and government affairs teams
The government is targeting earlier resolution of SEP disputes while ruling out a standalone IPEC rate determination track and restrictions on injunctions
Gift this article