UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: —

ACT_953/2024

Tissue design for protective clothing

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageNordic-Baltic RDInfringement Action—
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH, an Austrian protective workwear company, sued Sioen NV (Belgian), a major workwear manufacturer, before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division for infringement of EP 2 186 428 B2, a patent covering a specific tissue/fabric design for protective clothing including a waffle-structure knitted layer. The court found infringement across 16 UPC member states, granted an injunction, recall, destruction, information disclosure, and awarded EUR 50,000 as an interim costs order. Sioen's challenges to the admissibility of TEXPORT's expert evidence were dismissed.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Infringement of EP 2 186 428 B2 (protective workwear patent) by Sioen NV across 16 UPC member states

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA

    Hinweis: Nordic-Baltic Regional Division found Sioen's products infringed TEXPORT's patent; injunction, recall, destruction, information disclosure and damages were granted.

  • Expert witness statements submitted by TEXPORT were admissible as justified reactions and replies to the Statement of Defence even though filed after initial pleadings

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: UPC Rules of Procedure on admissibility of evidence

    Hinweis: Court allowed the written statements, including the corrected version, because the first statement apparently attached was the wrong version intended for Belgian proceedings and the second was filed almost immediately after the rejoinder highlighted the mistake.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Exclusion of expert statements and associated claimant reasoning from proceedings

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: UPC Rules of Procedure

    Begründung: Defendant's requests to exclude the written statements were dismissed: the statements constituted a justified reply to the Statement of Defence, the fact that one statement was prepared for Belgian proceedings did not make it inadmissible, and the corrected second statement was filed almost immediately after the issue was raised.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Expert/written statements filed as replies to Statement of Defence are admissible if they constitute justified reactions to new defence argumentsThe fact a witness statement was originally drafted for parallel national proceedings does not render it inadmissibleTechnical findings on infringement: knitted waffle-structure layer constitutes infringement of the protective workwear patent

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

Key disputed claim element was whether Sioen's products have a knitted layer/material constituting a 'waffle structure' within the meaning of EP 2 186 428 B2. The oral hearing was structured around this question; the court found the waffle structure feature was present in Sioen's products. The court also addressed whether Sioen's participation in a public tender (not granted) constituted an 'offering' or 'offer to supply' within the patent's territorial scope.