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

Latham & Watkins bolstered its IP litigation bench in California with the addition of Kieran Kieckhefer, as partner demand for trial-ready expertise shows no sign of slowing
With the launch of a new patent eligibility AI tool, Sterne Kessler is leading a growing movement of law firms taking AI development into their own hands
UPC cases are (very) gradually becoming more distributed across other local divisions outside Germany, which can only be good news for the pan-European forum
Clarification concerning jurisdictional reach and latest stats released by the court were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
Although unanimous decision by the top court clarifies several aspects of the honest concurrent use defence, practitioners say ambiguities remain
Tristan Sherliker says he hopes to solve an access to justice issue by making the automated court bundle tool free to use
The team, comprising two partners and one senior consultant, plans to offer “highly differentiated” services to clients
HGF’s new ownership model frees it from the hiring constraints of traditional partnerships, its CEO told Managing IP
New timeline for 2026 aims to provide clearer guidance to firms and practitioners on the full jurisdictional market view
Attorneys contemplate whether clients using AI for legal guidance is beneficial to attorney-client relationships or more of a nuisance
Gift this article