A Protocol for IP Disputes at the Brussels Enterprise Court

The Dutch-speaking Enterprise Court of Brussels has long been a central forum for intellectual property litigation in Belgium. On 2 March 2026, a protocol entered into force setting out best practices for interactions between lawyers and the court in IP matters. Its aim is straightforward: to improve cooperation and ensure efficient, professional case management. Three points stand out.

1. A Formalized Partnership Between the Bar and the Bench

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this protocol is what it represents structurally: a formalized agreement between the judiciary and the legal profession.

Such a bilateral agreement is new in Belgian IP litigation. Rather than relying on informal chamber practices, the court and the bar have endorsed a common framework, signed on 20 February 2026 and in force since 2 March 2026. It is not hard law, but the protocol carries authority.

2. Protective Letters: A Soft Legal Framework

One of the more practically significant provisions of the protocol concerns protective letters (beschermbrieven). A “protective letter” is a letter that a company submits to the court to preventively defend itself against a possible unilateral procedure it fears being the target of. When a unilateral petition is filed, the president will verify whether a protective letter has been lodged. If so, the matter is called in chambers.

Although protective letters are not new to Belgian procedure, their status has remained largely practice-based. The protocol now acknowledges their place within the procedural framework, giving them, in effect, soft-law legitimacy. For IP defendants concerned about ex parte injunctions, the court’s commitment to verify whether such a letter has been filed before proceeding offers meaningful procedural reassurance.

3. The Verificatiezitting: Preliminary Hearing to Assess Case Readiness Inspired by Appellate Practice

The protocol introduces a verification hearing (verificatiezitting) in IP cases on the merits. After the close of the written phase, the Court will hold a hearing to assess whether the case is ready for pleading and to organise the practical arrangements for the pleading session. In preparation, the parties submit a completed verification form, one week in advance.

The mechanism mirrors the “relais” practice of the Brussels Court of Appeal and transposes it to first instance IP litigation. The objective is to avoid last-minute procedural disputes and preserve pleading time.

Crucially, the verification hearing can take place digitally — an efficient measure that reflects the realities of modern litigation practice.

Conclusion

This protocol is a welcome development. By formalising cooperation between bench and bar and introducing structured case-management tools, it strengthens predictability in IP proceedings. Close coordination with the court is essential in a jurisdiction that handles a substantial share of Belgium’s IP disputes.

If you would like further information, please contact Bregt Raus (bregt.raus@altius.com).