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

In other news, Ericsson sought a declaratory judgment against Acer and Netflix filed a cease-and-desist letter against ByteDance over AI misuse
As trade secret filings rise due to AI development and economic espionage concerns, firms are relying on proactive counselling to help clients navigate disputes
IP firm leaders share why they remain positive in the face of falling patent applications from US filers, and how they are meeting a rising demand from China
The power of DEI to swing IP pitches is welcome, but why does it have to be left so late?
Mathew Lucas has joined Pearce IP after spending more than 25 years at Qantm IP-owned firm Davies Collison Cave
Exclusive survey data reveals a generally lax in-house attitude towards DEI, but pitches have been known to turn on a final diversity question
Managing IP will host a ceremony in London on May 1 to reveal the winners
Abigail Wise shares her unusual pathway into the profession, from failing A-levels to becoming Lewis Silkin’s first female IP partner
There are some impressive AI tools available for trademark lawyers, but law firm leaders say humans can still outthink the bots
Lawyers at Simmons & Simmons look ahead to a UK Supreme Court hearing in which the court will consider whether English courts can determine FRAND terms when the licence is offered by an intermediary rather than an SEP owner
Gift this article