Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/patents-laws-and-regulations/belgium
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:43:39+00:00

Document:
Under civil law, a patent can only be enforced against an infringer before the Commercial Court of Brussels, which has exclusive jurisdiction (Article XI.337 of the Belgian Code on Economic Law – BCEL).
An alternative route is to file a criminal complaint that may lead to criminal proceedings, although this is hardly ever done in practice.
Mediation and arbitration are not mandatory in patent-related matters in Belgium and have not been commonly used as an alternative to court proceedings in such matters to date. However, there is a trend towards mediation in Belgium in other fields of intellectual property (IP) law, so this situation may change in the future.
Under Article 440 of the Belgian Judicial Code (BJC), attorneys currently have the exclusive right to argue before the Belgian courts, including in patent matters.
Patent attorneys may act as witnesses and provide technical clarifications to the court in this capacity. The Belgian legislator recently granted patent attorneys limited rights of audience in the Belgian courts (Article 729, §1ter BCJ), but this provision has yet to enter into force.
Patent proceedings are commenced by serving a writ of summons on the defendant through a bailiff. This writ must identify the parties, contain the claim and a brief summary of the arguments, as well as the court seized and the time, place and date of the introductory hearing.
The docket fee at the Commercial Court of Brussels is currently 60–100 EUR depending on the nature of the proceedings. On appeal, the docket fee is 160–210 EUR. In addition, the bailiff charges a fee. Both the docket fees and the bailiff costs may ultimately be recovered from the losing party (see question 1.28 below).
The time to reach trial depends on the procedural route taken. In preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings, the trial usually takes place within one to six months; in proceedings on the merits, usually after 1.5 to two years. A third route, the so-called cease-and-desist action, combines the speed of PI proceedings and a decision on the merits of the case without the possibility to claim damages. This type of action takes approximately one year to reach trial from commencement.
There is no discovery under Belgian law.
However, prior to commencing PI proceedings or proceedings on the merits, the patent owner may petition the President of the Commercial Court of Brussels for a seizure (in Dutch: beslag inzake namaak;in French: saisie-contrefaçon). These ex parte proceedings allow the owner of a prima facie valid patent to obtain a description by a court-appointed expert and/or seizure measures against the alleged infringer upon proof of indications of (imminent) infringement. The court expert takes into account reasonable claims of confidentiality on the part of the alleged infringer and drafts a report (with all relevant documents in annex), which is submitted to the court and communicated to the patentee, who can use it as the basis of proceedings on the merits.
Outside the context of a saisie-contrefaçon, the court may also order a party to produce certain evidence under Article 877 BCJ, which is only rarely used in IP cases.
Once proceedings have been commenced, each party must disclose all documents or materials relied upon to the other party. The claimant must submit all exhibits relied upon within eight days after the introductory hearing, while the defendant must do this with their first trial brief. The parties may submit additional exhibits with subsequent briefs. Sometimes redacted versions of documents are submitted to the court to protect confidential information.
After service of the writ of summons to the defendant, the introductory hearing takes place within at least nine days (longer if the defendant is domiciled abroad; cf. question 1.27 below). Simple cases may be tried at the introductory hearing, but this is rarely the case in patent matters. At the introductory hearing, deadlines are set for the exchange of written trial briefs, and usually a hearing date.
Usually, the parties file two or three trial briefs each, depending on the complexity of the case. The final trial brief must contain a synthesis of all arguments.
In patent matters, the parties often rely on technical evidence, including expert declarations and technical materials. These documents must be prepared in advance in writing and must be disclosed to the other party prior to trial.
Prior to trial, the parties prepare binders with all the evidence and copies of case law and/or legal doctrine relied upon in the trial briefs, which are usually filed with the court registry two weeks before trial. Trial briefs and exhibits may be filed with the court electronically but many judges still request a paper copy.
At trial, the court normally lets counsel argue right away. Sometimes the court first provides a brief summary of the case.
The claimant’s counsel always argues first and usually presents all their claims and arguments, after which the defendant’s counsel does the same. Sometimes, the court divides the case into smaller chunks, e.g. admissibility, novelty, inventive step, etc., whereby each party then only argues a particular topic.
Following the main arguments of both sides, each party gets the opportunity to reply. During arguments or at the end of the trial, the court usually asks a few questions.
Live witness examination at trial is very rare; witness statements are almost always given in writing. Conversely, patent attorneys may (with the court’s permission) weigh in on technical details during the oral arguments as a technical witness.
Parties may not change their arguments before and/or at trial. They may only argue at trial what was in the written pre-trial briefs, at the risk of violating the other side’s rights of defence.
It is possible to opt for entirely written proceedings, without a trial. In patent litigation this possibility appears to be purely theoretical.
A patent trial on the merits can take between one hour and a few days. Most commonly, a patent case is allotted a half-day of the court’s time (three hours). Counsel is well advised to stick to the allotted time lest they irritate the court.
In PI proceedings, the trial usually lasts one to two hours at most.
In PI proceedings, a judgment may be issued only a few weeks or even days after the hearing. In proceedings on the merits, a judgment is rarely issued less than six months after trial, and it may take longer.
Judgments of Belgian courts are, in principle, open to the public, but are not actively made available to the public. Publication in mainstream or specialised press can be specifically ordered by the court, but this does not happen very often.
Copies of the judgment are sent to the parties and/or they can pick up a copy at the court office. Additionally, the court registry sends all IP-related court judgments to the Belgian IP Office (in Dutch, Dienst voor de Intellectuele Eigendom (DIE); in French, Office belge de la Propriété intellectuelle (OPRI)).
There is currently still no official database of IP-related judgments (online or otherwise), although many IP-related judgments are available through a voluntary exchange of information between counsel on the free website www.ie-forum.be. In addition, there are several private databases of court judgments that are accessible upon payment of a fee.
In theory, third parties can request copies of judgments at the court registry. In practice, however, the already overloaded court registries hesitate to provide such copies, presumably to avoid setting a precedent.
Courts are not at all obliged to follow precedents from previous similar cases. In practice, they will often refer back to their own past case law and/or case law from other Belgian courts and consider such case law to be a relevant factor. In particular, case law from the court’s own corresponding Court of Appeal is taken into consideration.
Judgments from other European jurisdictions are increasingly taken into account. When such judgments contradict each other, the Belgian court will decide which is more persuasive.
Civil IP-related cases are heard by judges specialised in commercial law. There is a tendency towards more legal specialisation in patent cases, although most judges that hear IP-related cases also still hear cases in other areas of commercial law. Virtually none of the patent judges has a technical background.
Any party bringing a legal action in Belgium must have a personal, legitimate and immediate interest in doing so (Article 17-18 BJC). An immediate interest is also deemed to exist if an action is brought to prevent the violation of a right that is seriously threatened.
(i) Infringement proceedings: the claimant has the required interest in case of (imminent) infringement of their patent.
(ii) Revocation proceedings: the claimant has the required interest in case there is an imminent threat of enforcement of the patent. Additionally, the alleged infringer may file a revocation action by way of a counterclaim.
(iii) Declaratory proceedings: the claimant has the required interest in case there is an imminent threat of enforcement of the patent (e.g. the patentee sent a warning letter).
In order for relief to be available under Belgian law, there must be an actual and present dispute between the parties. (i) The court can issue a declaration of non-infringement for a particular product or process. (ii) A declaration cannot concern a hypothetical activity. A declaration in the context of technical standards will usually decide the point of infringement and not just whether or not a technical standard is covered.
Yes to both questions (Article XI.29, §2 BCEL). There is secondary (or indirect) patent infringement in cases where someone supplies or offers to supply a third party in the Belgian territory with means relating to an essential element of a patented invention, for putting the invention into effect in the territory, when that someone knows, or when it is obvious under the circumstances, that those means are suitable and intended for putting that invention into effect. There is no infringement when the “means” are staple commercial products, except when the third party induces the person supplied to commit infringing acts.
Yes, as provided for by Article XI.29, §1, c) BCEL.
Yes, Article XI.28, paragraph 2 BCEL provides that in determining the scope of protection of a patent claim, sufficient account must be taken of each element that is equivalent to an element described in the patent claims.
In determining the existence of equivalence, the function-way-result test is applied, meaning that there is infringement by equivalence if the allegedly infringing product/process takes over the (essential) characteristics of the invention as claimed and that the technical equivalent performs substantially the same technical function, in substantially the same way and with substantially the same result.
Yes, it is possible to challenge patent validity: (i) by way of a counter-claim filed in the first trial brief in the context of infringement proceedings; and/or (ii) by filing separate proceedings to this end.
There is no restriction on a defence of patent invalidity. However, when there is a pending opposition, the court may, at its own discretion, decide to stay the proceedings to await the outcome of the opposition proceedings (see question 1.19 below).
There is no bifurcation. If issues of validity are raised by way of a counter-claim, those issues are heard in the same proceedings as the infringement question.
The patent owner is not the inventor or their legal successor.
This is a matter of discretion for the court. In making this decision, the court will make a balance-of-interests analysis and thereby take into account procedural economy as well as the principles of proportionality and fairness.
Foreign vessels, aircraft or land vehicles exception.
Bolar exemption (Article 6bis, §1,12 Belgian Medicines Act); both the Bolar and research exemptions will be amended if and when the Unified Patent Court (UPC) system enters into force.
Right of use in a personal capacity in case of prior use in good faith in Belgium (Article XI.36 BCEL).
Defence based on EU competition law, such as FRAND and/or “essential facilities”.
In theory, but as yet untested in practice: counterclaim for compulsory licence (Article XI.38 BCEL).
The patent in suit is prima facie valid.
There is a prima facie infringement of the patent in suit.
Usually the court does a balance-of-interests analysis.
Final injunctions are available if the patent in suit is found valid and infringed on the merits.
The court may require a bond. This is a matter of discretion for the court. A requirement for a bond does not exist automatically.
Damages are in principle compensatory and thus aimed at repairing the damage resulting from the infringement. The claimant carries the burden of proof. The claimant may claim lost profits as well as actual loss suffered (lucrum cessans et damnum emergens). Actual loss suffered may include both material and moral damage.
If the extent of the damage cannot be calculated, the court may grant a reasonable and fair lump-sum compensation.
No punitive damages are available. However, in case of bad faith on the part of the infringer, the court may order an account of profits as well as the forfeiture of the infringing goods and, in some cases, of the manufacturing tools/materials.
Court orders are enforced through a bailiff. Once a court order has been handed down and the losing party has not expressly acquiesced, the judgment is served on the losing party. Often, the court order sets a grace period, during which the losing party has time to ensure compliance with the order.
If the losing party does not comply, the bailiff can enforce the court order, e.g. by seizing the defendant’s assets.
The court very often attaches penalties to the injunctions and other measures it orders. These penalties are also collected through a bailiff.
Following recent changes to Belgian procedural law, first instance decisions are in principle enforceable pending appeal, unless the court has expressly motivated its decision to the contrary. Court of Appeal judgments are also enforceable pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, except for revocation judgments (Article XI.59, §1 BCEL).
Publication of the judgment at the cost of the defendant.
Recall and/or destruction of the infringing goods and/or the manufacturing tools/materials at the cost of the infringer.
Obtainment of information from the infringer regarding the provenance and/or distribution channels of the infringing products.
In view of the territoriality of patent rights, cross-border relief is not granted in proceedings on the merits. However, in some cases, cross-border provisional measures may be obtained.
Pre-trial settlement in patent infringement matters does not appear to be very common, although it is difficult to tell how often cases are settled since such settlements are invariably confidential. National procedures that are part of a larger cross-border dispute may be settled as a result of consistent court decisions in foreign jurisdictions.
The general limitation period for torts applies, so that a claim for patent infringement is time-barred five years following the date on which the patent owner takes cognisance of the damage incurred as a result of the patent infringement at issue.
Yes to both questions. An appeal against a first instance judgment can be filed within one month after service of the decision. This deadline is extended if the appealing party is domiciled abroad. Once a party files an appeal, the other party can file an incidental appeal by way of trial brief. As a result, all aspects of the judgment can be contested.
The main cost of proceedings on the merits is attorneys’ fees, which vary depending on the hourly rate of the attorneys and the complexity of the case. For first instance proceedings on the merits in patent matters (usually validity and infringement combined), attorneys’ fees range from 25,000 EUR to 200,000 EUR.
Under Belgian law, only a limited amount of attorneys’ fees is currently recoverable from the losing party, according to statutory caps ranging from 1,440 EUR to 36,000 EUR. On 28 July 2016 the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled that the recoverable amount should ensure “that a significant and appropriate part of the reasonable costs incurred by the successful party are borne by the unsuccessful party” (C-57/15, United Video Properties Inc. v Telenet NV). It is widely considered that the Belgian fee recovery system does not meet this standard in IP cases. Despite this judgment, the Belgian courts have continued to apply the statutory cap system, which has not yet been amended.
An additional cost is the fees for the patent attorney(s) providing technical assistance and, especially in the case of a saisie-contrefaçon, the court-appointed expert(s). Pursuant to the abovementioned CJEU judgment (which overruled Supreme Court case law on this subject), patent attorney fees are recoverable from the losing party provided that they are directly and closely linked to a judicial action concerning the enforcement of a patent.
Finally, there are also court fees for filing a petition, as well as bailiff costs. Such costs are generally fully recoverable from the losing party.
The Belgian Parliament ratified the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) on 23 April 2014. The Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) was signed in June 2016.
The Belgian provisions on patent law have already been amended in light of the unitary patent package (e.g. a limitation of the broad Belgian research exemption). This legislation is not yet in force but will enter into force simultaneously with the UPCA.
Belgium will host a local division of the UPC in Brussels that will hold hearings in Dutch, French, German and English. It is believed that this local division will be located at the offices of the Belgian Ministry for Economic Affairs in Brussels.
Yes, at any given time, the patent owner may partially renounce their patent or have their patent partially revoked by submitting a written declaration to this effect to the Belgian IP Office, which enters this claim amendment in the patent register. Limitation proceedings may also be brought before the European Patent Office (EPO).
Yes, this is possible (Article XI.57, §2 BCEL). If accepted by the court, such amendments are then entered in the patent register.
Yes, an amendment is not allowed if this would extend the subject matter of the patent beyond the patent application as originally filed (unlawfully added matter). Further, the claim amendments must be supported by the description.
There is no specific legislation limiting the terms of licence agreements. General contract law is applied.
See question 7.2 regarding limitations on patent licencing due to competition law.
Yes, this is possible (see Articles XI.37–46 BCEL) although very rare. We have no knowledge of any compulsory licence with effect on Belgian territory.
As the law currently stands, the terms are settled by public authorities, more specifically the Minister for Economic Affairs, upon the non-binding advice of a commission specifically set up for this purpose or the Advisory Council for Bio-ethics.
A patent cannot be extended as such, but a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) is available for patents that cover an authorised medical or plant protection product. An SPC takes effect upon expiry of the basic patent covering the product for a maximum term of five years or 15 years from the authorisation of the product, whichever is the earliest. If the SPC relates to a paediatric medicine, an additional six-month extension may be granted.
Discoveries; scientific theories and mathematical methods; aesthetic creations; schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business; computer programs; and presentations of information.
Inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to ordre public or morality.
Plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals, with the exception of microbiological processes and the products thereof.
Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body. This rule does not apply to products (in particular, substances or compositions) for use in such methods.
There is no such duty.
There are no opposition proceedings before the Belgian IP Office. Third parties may file an opposition with the EPO against a European patent designating Belgium within nine months following the date of publication of the grant in the European Patent Bulletin. Additionally, the validity of a patent may be challenged before the courts of Brussels (see question 1.1).
The possibility to file an appeal against a decision of the Belgian IP Office is not expressly provided for under Belgian law. However, pursuant to the rule of law, all governmental acts should be subject to judicial review. An appeal against a decision of the Belgian IP Office may be filed with the Commercial Court of Brussels and is introduced through a writ of summons. This only occurs in exceptional cases.
Such disputes are resolved either ex parte during the prosecution of the patent application or inter partes in the context of revocation proceedings (or infringement proceedings whereby entitlement to priority and/or ownership was disputed).
Certain publicly available information is removed from the presumed state of the art if it was disclosed six months or earlier before the patent application was filed and if this disclosure was the result of: (i) a manifest abuse vis-à-vis the applicant or their legal predecessor; or (ii) under certain specific circumstances, the exhibition of the invention by the applicant or their legal predecessor (Article XI.6 §6 BCEL).
The patent term is 20 years from the date of filing the patent application (Article XI.47 §1 BCEL).
Yes, there is such a mechanism in place based on the EU Customs Regulation (608/2013). In the case that infringing goods are found, the IP owner and the declarant or holder of the goods are notified within a working day. Within 10 working days (three in case of perishable goods), the IP owner must confirm the counterfeit and both parties must indicate whether or not the goods may be destroyed. The goods are subsequently released or destroyed, as applicable. If the declarant or the holder of the goods does not expressly approve destruction in time, court proceedings must be initiated within 10 working days (three in case of perishable goods). During these proceedings, the goods are put in storage. In summary, if all parties approve the destruction of the infringing goods, border measures are resolved very quickly. In case of resistance, obtaining a court decision at first instance may take up to two to three years, depending on the procedural route taken.
In theory, yes. In accordance with the Huawei v ZTE judgment of the CJEU (C-170/13), owners of standard essential patents (SEPs) must follow FRAND procedure in patent licensing negotiations if they want to be able to obtain a PI against an alleged infringer. The alleged infringer can claim an abuse of dominance by the SEP owner to avoid an injunction. We are not aware of any Belgian precedent to this effect.
Under Belgian and European competition law, agreements and concerted practices that appreciably restrict competition are prohibited (Article 101, §1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article IV.1 §1 BCEL). Patent licensing agreements fall within the scope of this provision if the licence terms provide more rights to the owner than those conferred by the patent. Terms such as extension of patent scope, price fixing, limitations on output, allocation of customers and restrictions upon the use of the licensee’s own technology are problematic, subject to the exemptions in Article 101, §3 TFEU (Article IV.1, §3 BCEL) and block exemption regulations. Especially relevant is the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation of 21 March 2014 and its Guidelines.
Further limitations apply in case of dominance (Article 102 TFEU and Article IV.2 BCEL; see also question 7.1 above regarding FRAND terms).
The Act of 8 July 2018 (yet to enter into force together with the UPC package) regulates the patent attorney profession and protects the title of “patent attorney” in Belgium. The Act also establishes a limited legal privilege for Belgian and European patent attorneys in Belgium. Patent attorneys will further be granted a limited right to be heard at court hearings.
A significant ongoing development is the increased flexibility in the language of patents in Belgium since 1 January 2017 as a result of the implementation of the London Agreement. All European patents designating Belgium now have legal effect on the Belgian territory, regardless of the language in which they were granted.
The entry into force of the UPC package would constitute a significant development in the Belgian patent sector. This would also trigger the abovementioned amendments to Belgian patent law (see question 1.29 above).
Further to recent case law of the Supreme Court, the courts of Brussels now engage in a more substantive analysis of prima facie patent validity in the context of PI proceedings. While the adage “foi est due au titre” still stands, the room for invalidity arguments appears to be growing.

References: §1
 §2
 §1
 §1
 §1
 CJEU 
 §2
 §6
 §1
 CJEU 
 §1
 §1
 §3
 §3