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, Australia’s IP office has announced expanded search options, and an EPO report shed light on slow progress relating to women inventors in Europe
Managing IP speaks with up-and-coming women lawyers at five law firms about fighting imposter syndrome, maintaining work-life balance and why real representation matters
Kilpatrick’s managing partner for San Francisco discusses taking the longer route to partnership, the importance of female mentors, and strengthening office culture
Home-working and grace periods at IP offices have been announced, while Managing IP understands Iran’s IP office is out of service
With INTA 2026 just two months away, London-based IP practitioners offer tips on making the most out of the city
New platform, which covers SEPs for the Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 7 standards, includes 10 patent owners
The Texas-based IP litigation hires take King & Spalding’s partner appointments from pre-merger Winston & Strawn up to 12 this year
Sunny Su explains how her team overcame challenges with orchard evidence collection to secure a favourable plant variety decision from China’s top court
Flexible working firm continues trajectory from 2025 with appointment of Matthew Grant and Letao Qin
Anousha Davies, associate and trademark attorney at Birketts, unpicks how the university’s reputation enabled it to see off a proposed trademark for ‘Cambridge Rowing’
Gift this article