UPC CFI 9/2024
12. Jan. 2024·EP2186428 · Tissue design for protective clothing
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 953/2024
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Thomas Adocker-Taylor Wessing
- Michael Babeluk-Babeluk Patentanwälte GmbH
- Laura Coucke-Taylor Wessing
Beklagte- Sioen NVUnternehmen
Vertreter- Antonin Lambrecht-CAPE IP Law
- Véronique Pede-CAPE IP Law
- Michaël Moreels-Gevers
- Division
- Nordic-Baltic RD
- Technologie
- ChemistrySurface technology, coating
- Other fieldsOther consumer goods
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 29. Okt. 2024
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 31. Juli 2025
- EPA-Einspruch
- Sioen NVZulässig2014-01-31
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Nordic-Baltic RD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Stefan Johansson | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Alima Zana | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Kai Härmand | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Marie-Paule Vandeberg | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH (4 Verfahren)·Sioen NV (4 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Nordic-Baltic RD·2024
- 2025-07-31Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Decision by Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (UPC_CFI_9/2024, 31 July 2025) finding Sioen NV liable for infringement of EP 2 186 428 B2 (protective workwear / clothing) across 16 UPC member states. An injunction was granted, product recall and destruction ordered, information on sales required, damages declared owing, and EUR 50,000 awarded as interim legal costs. All other requests were dismissed.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- Patent infringement (found)
- Injunction, recall and destruction
- Damages declaration
- Interim cost award (EUR 50,000)
- Protective workwear patent
- 2024-10-29Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division issued a post-interim-conference order in infringement proceedings, setting the value of the action at EUR 500,000, closing the written procedure, partially referring a preliminary objection issue to main proceedings, and allowing certain expert evidence previously contested by the defendant.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- Value of action (R.370.6 RoP)
- Interim conference decisions
- Preliminary objection referral to main proceedings
- Admissibility of expert evidence
- Parallel Belgian proceedings
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| CFI_9-2024 Decision anonymised | 2025-07-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| DecisionOutcome | 2025-07-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Decision on the merits | 2025-07-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Decision on the merits | 2025-07-31 | Öffentlich |
| Recording document of oral hearing | 2025-02-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Recording document of oral hearing | 2025-02-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Preliminary_Objection_DecisionOutcome | 2024-12-20 | Nicht öffentlich |
| RoP 105.5 Order - Anonymized | 2024-12-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Interim-Procedure-Closure | 2024-12-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Summon-Oral-Hearing | 2024-12-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
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.
Infringement of EP 2 186 428 B2 (protective workwear patent) by Sioen NV across 16 UPC member states
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCAHinweis: 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 evidenceHinweis: 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.
Exclusion of expert statements and associated claimant reasoning from proceedings
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: UPC Rules of ProcedureBegründung: 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.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
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.