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

McDermott Will & Schulte lawyers explore why the UPC is seeing rapid adoption by medtech for fast-moving disputes, while pharma and biotech take a cautious, selective approach over revocation risks
IP firms may be growing more comfortable with external capital, but uncertainty over who could ultimately own the business is complicating the investment pitch
The former Western District of Texas judge addresses perceptions of his courtroom, reveals what comes next as he returns to practice at A&O Shearman and explains why marathon running is ‘cathartic’
International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition says it has been blocked from hosting its annual event in the city, ending a long tradition of holding the gathering in the days leading up to INTA’s flagship event
The ITC is a powerful tool for litigators, practitioners say, as the threat of an exclusion order on a critical tech component could mean disrupting the entire data centre's operations
Anna Toh plans to expand Rajah & Tann’s soft IP capabilities, leveraging its Southeast Asia network to support clients on cross-border portfolio management and commercial strategy
The Canadian boutique’s new IP lead says he wants to build a tech-enabled IP practice aimed at giving startups senior expertise away from the traditional ‘big law’ set-up
Qantm IP’s acquisition of Henry Goh & Co shows shifting attitudes towards private equity, with firms increasingly viewing external backing as a normal route to expansion rather than a source of concern
The firm’s involvement in prominent AI cases drew litigator Christian Mammen to join from Womble Bond Dickinson, as US firms continue to bolster AI-focused practices
Two judicial appointments confirmed in Paris and Mannheim, while cross-border injunctions and high-profile procedural rulings keep major patent practices occupied
Gift this article