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

As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
A decision finding Google liable for trademark infringement and the launch of a new IP services group were also among the top talking points
Law firms across the world are seemingly united in their reluctance to give juniors a chance, which shouldn’t be the case
In-house counsel say they want more visibility for the next generation of lawyers, but private practice practitioners believe jurisdictional challenges stand in their way
IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals this year’s first rankings, showing how firms in Asia-Pacific are performing across a range of practice areas
A dispute over buggies, a decision on the UPC’s jurisdiction, and the formal launch of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre were among the top developments
Sofie McPherson says she is excited to work at a firm that offers an integrated approach between attorneys and litigators
Personality rights are among several measures the government must take to maximise the potential of the music licensing market, say lawyers
Pascal Faure, director general of INPI, explains why keeping a cool head is key, and discusses plans to leverage IP assets to secure funding
Gift this article