UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 575/2025

25. Juni 2025·EP2563695 · TELESCOPIC BELT CONVEYOR

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Mannheim LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Mechanical engineering
    Handling
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
22. Okt. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
18. Sept. 2026
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Mannheim LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Peter TochtermannGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Marjolein VisserGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Dirk BöttcherGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Giorgio CheccacciGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. (2 Verfahren)·Sovex Systems B.V. (2 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 1 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 1135/2025

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Mannheim LD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-09-18
    InfringementÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division held that VeyorEx, Solvest VII, Solvink, Kleine Beuk and Hemtech directly infringed EP 2 563 695 (telescopic belt conveyor, 'Bendy Booms') and granted an injunction for DE, DK, FR, NL, LV and IT, information, a declaration of liability for damages and EUR 75,000 provisional damages; the action against Solvest V and VI failed. The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed because none of the validity attacks succeeded, and a stay under R. 295(m) RoP was refused.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
    • Direct infringement after termination of a licence agreement
    • Licence defence not substantiated
    • Validity (counterclaim for revocation)
    • Stay pending national proceedings under R. 295(m) RoP
    • Interim award of damages (R. 119 RoP)
    • Penalty payments (R. 354.3 RoP)
  • 2026-02-12
    Preliminary objectionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection filed by all seven defendants (led by Sovex Systems and Solvest entities) in Honeywell's infringement action concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Court retained jurisdiction over the Dutch defendants under Art. 33(1) UPCA and rejected the defendants' arguments challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (Bosnia and Herzegovina) under Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b Brussels I Recast. The Court found Honeywell had sufficiently asserted German-directed infringing acts at the pleadings stage, without needing to pre-judge the merits. Leave to appeal the rejection was not granted by the judge-rapporteur.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Preliminary objection under R.19 RoP
    • Jurisdiction under Art.33(1) UPCA
    • International jurisdiction over non-EU defendant (Art.31 UPCA, Art.71b Brussels I)
    • Competence of UPC over defendants domiciled in Netherlands
    • Infringement assertion threshold at pleadings stage
  • 2025-10-22
    Preliminary objectionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division (judge-rapporteur Marjolein Visser) ruled on a preliminary objection filed by the defendants in an infringement action by Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The court dismissed the request to transfer the case to The Hague regarding Sovex Systems (D1) and the other Dutch defendants (D2-D6), finding that the Mannheim Local Division has competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on alleged infringement occurring in Germany. The request to dismiss for lack of international jurisdiction over Hemtech (D7, Bosnia) was also addressed.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP)
    • Competence of UPC Local Division under Art. 32 UPCA
    • Territorial competence under Art. 33(1)(a) and (b) UPCA
    • International jurisdiction over non-EU defendants (Art. 31 UPCA)
    • Interpretation of 'place where infringement occurred' by analogy with Art. 7(2) Brussels I Recast
Dokumente
Alle 225 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Veröffentlichung der Entscheidung2026-09-18Nicht öffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-09-18Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2026-09-18Nicht öffentlich
Decision2026-09-18Öffentlich
Receipt2026-09-03Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-09-03Nicht öffentlich
Document Defendant2026-09-03Nicht öffentlich
Document Defendant2026-09-03Nicht öffentlich
Beratung eröffnet2026-07-21Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-07-17Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Honeywell Control Systems challenged the preliminary objection filed by seven Solvest/Sovex group defendants in its infringement action concerning telescopic belt conveyor patent EP 2 563 695 B1. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the objection in both its October 2025 and February 2026 orders, holding that Art. 33(1)(a) and (b) competence grounds are co-equal, that a cursory allegation of German infringement suffices at the jurisdictional stage, and that international jurisdiction over Bosnian defendant Hemtech under Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b Brussels I was adequately established by Honeywell's pleadings.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Mannheim Local Division has competence over Dutch defendants under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on sufficiently asserted German infringement

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA; CoA 28 November 2025 UPC_CoA_317/2025 (Barco v Yealink)

    Hinweis: Court found that Honeywell's allegation that the allegedly infringing telescopic belt conveyor was marketed Europe-wide, with six named German clients, was sufficient to establish competence without pre-judging the merits.

  • International jurisdiction over Hemtech (Bosnia) under Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b Brussels I Recast

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 31 UPCA; Art. 71b Brussels I Recast Regulation

    Hinweis: Court held that Honeywell's allegation that Hemtech commits infringing acts in a contracting member state was sufficient at this stage; whether Hemtech actually infringes is a merits question.

  • Competence assessment should use a 'cursory look' standard without comprehensive evidence evaluation

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: CoA 28 November 2025 UPC_CoA_317/2025 headnotes 3-5

    Hinweis: Court applied the Court of Appeal's standard that jurisdictional competence should be established by a preliminary review of allegations, not a full merits assessment.

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

  • Case against Sovex (D1) should be transferred to The Hague as Sovex is domiciled in the Netherlands

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33(1)(a)-(b) UPCA

    Begründung: Court held that Art. 33(1)(a) competence based on infringement in Germany is equal in hierarchy to Art. 33(1)(b) domicile-based competence; no hierarchy exists between the two grounds, and German infringement was sufficiently asserted.

  • Art. 33(1)(a) must be interpreted restrictively as a lex specialis requiring a specific territorial connection analogous to CJEU Kalfelis restrictive interpretation of Art. 7(2) Brussels I

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA; CoA 28 November 2025

    Begründung: Court, following Court of Appeal case law, held there is no hierarchy between Art. 33(1)(a) and (b) and that sufficiently asserting infringement in Germany is enough at the jurisdictional stage.

  • CJEU reference on Art. 32 UPCA and Art. 71a-71b Brussels I is necessary

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 267 TFEU

    Begründung: Court declined the referral request citing ample existing UPC Court of Appeal case law resolving the issues.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
No hierarchy between Art. 33(1)(a) (infringement locus) and Art. 33(1)(b) (domicile) competence groundsCompetence assessment uses a 'cursory look' standard; comprehensive evidentiary review would improperly anticipate the merits (CoA Barco v Yealink)Sufficiently asserting infringement in the relevant contracting state (e.g. via a website directed at European customers including German clients) is enough to establish Art. 33(1)(a) competenceWhether a defendant from a non-contracting state (e.g. Bosnia) actually commits infringing acts is a merits question, not a jurisdictional threshold

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.