UPC_CFI_1357/2025

Decisions and documents (7)

• 2026-10-29procedural

  Claimants:

  ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.

  Defendants:

  EUROSILICONE SAS; GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS; GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS GmbH; GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L.; GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U.; GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED; NAGOR LIMITED; ROMED N.V.

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-10-28procedural

  Claimants:

  ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.

  Defendants:

  EUROSILICONE SAS; GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS; GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS GmbH; GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L.; GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U.; GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED; NAGOR LIMITED; ROMED N.V.

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-08-14procedural

  Defendants:

  ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.

  Respondents:

  EUROSILICONE SAS; GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS; GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS GmbH; GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L.; GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U.; GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED; NAGOR LIMITED; ROMED N.V.

  A request for further pleadings should be explicit in accordance with R. 36 RoP.

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-06-26procedural

  Claimants:

  EUROSILICONE SAS; GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS; GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS GmbH; GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L.; GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U.; GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED; NAGOR LIMITED; ROMED N.V.

  In parallel national and UPC proceedings and based on the circumstances of the case, the UPC should endeavour as much as possible to align the means for obtaining evidence and specifically the submitted requests (in the UK, based on common law, in disclosure proceedings and at the UPC based (i.a.) on R. 190 RoP). Such alignment of requests will lead to a common evidence basis when assessing the infringement action and/or counterclaim for revocation and/or separate invalidity action. This approach is dictated by procedural efficiency and proportionality, balancing the respondent's burden of submitting evidence with the applicant's right to obtain it. K

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-06-04procedural

  Applicant:

  ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.

  Respondents:

  EUROSILICONE SAS; GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS; GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS GmbH; GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L.; GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U.; GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED; NAGOR LIMITED; ROMED N.V.

  1. R. 263.3 RoP is not constructed in such a way that limiting an action (even if this has an impact on the legal standing of one or more defendants against whom no allegations have been made anymore) would automatically imply the application of R. 265 RoP. The application of R. 265 RoP necessitates a formal application as a procedural step. 2. R. 361 RoP does not oblige the Court to decide on costs.

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-04-14procedural

  Applicants:

  EUROSILICONE SAS; GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS; GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS GmbH; GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L.; GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U.; GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED; NAGOR LIMITED; ROMED N.V.

  Respondents:

  ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.

  When assessing an application to produce evidence (R. 190 RoP application), the Court must consider the following cumulative conditions (cf. LD The Hague Order of 14 October 2024 in the case of Winnow v Orbisk, § 8, as further developed): 1. The requesting party must have presented evidence “reasonably available” in support of its claims. The assessment of this condition is prima facie and twofold: (a) Did the requesting party present “reasonable available” evidence to support its underlying assertions? (b) As an implied condition, could the requested evidence enable the requesting party to conclusively prove its assertions? 2. The evidence to which access is requested must (i) be “specified” and (ii) lie in control of the other party. 3. The other party’s confidential information must be protected. 4. The requirements of proportionality, equity, and fairness must be satisfied. This assessment is twofold: (a) The “timing” of the application as such taking into consideration the stage of the proceedings. (b) Each individual request as a final assessment.

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-03-18procedural

  Applicants:

  EUROSILICONE SAS; GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS; GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS GmbH; GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L.; GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED; GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U.; GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED; NAGOR LIMITED; ROMED N.V.

  Respondent:

  ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.

  dismissed

  1. While the place of incorporation and registration of the claimant could be a relevant factor in assessing a request for security, its relevance should be determined by establishing whether "similar or identical" guarantees are in place for recognising and enforcing a UPC costs order in the foreign (non-EU/EEA) state (cf. Chint v JingAO headnotes). Therefore, this factor is relevant to the decision of whether or not to grant security, rather than to the decision on the amount of the security. 2. When arguing that the recognition and/or enforcement proceedings of UPC costs orders are "unduly burdensome" in the relevant state, based on the alleged duration of these proceedings, the Court requires a standard/reference to assess these arguments. Assessing whether the duration leads to proceedings to be "unduly" (i.e. "excessive" or "unreasonable") burdensome implies a standard/reference in the sense of proceedings being not burdensome or "duly" (i.e. "acceptable" or "reasonable") burdensome. 3. While the duration of the enforcement proceedings might, based on the provided evidence, not be sufficient to establish "undue burden" of enforcement, it could be taken into consideration when examining the facts and circumstances in the assessment of legitimate concerns regarding the recoverability of a costs order related to the claimant's financial position. 4. When setting the security amount, consideration should be given to the costs likely to be incurred by introducing the counterclaim for revocation (if there is no indication that the defendants would have initiated a stand-alone revocation action had they not been confronted with the infringement action). 5. A witness statement that does not align with R. 175.2 RoP is not invalid, but this has an impact on the weight that should be attributed to such evidence.

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF