ACT 953/2024
—·EP2186428: Tissue design for protective clothing
- Case details
- Status—ActionInfringementCategoryMain Infringement Action
- Parties
- ClaimantsReps: Thomas Adocker (Taylor Wessing); Laura Coucke (Taylor Wessing); Michael Babeluk (Babeluk Patentanwälte); Martin Babeluk (Babeluk Patentanwälte)RespondentsReps: Véronique Pede (CAPE IP Law); Antonin Lambrecht (CAPE IP Law); Michaël Moreels (GEVERS IP Law)
- Division
- Nordic-Baltic RD
- Judges
- Stefan Johansson · Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur
- Kai Härmand · Legally qualified judge
- Alima Zana · Legally qualified judge
- Technology
- Consumer Goods · Protective Clothing
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Oct 29, 2024
- Last decision
- Jul 31, 2025
- 2025-07-31InfringedInjunction grantedInfringement meritsInfringement Action
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.
Legal issues:Patent infringement (found)Injunction, recall and destructionDamages declarationInterim cost award (EUR 50,000)Protective workwear patentDamages: 50,000 - 2024-10-29Infringement Action
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.
Legal issues:Value of action (R.370.6 RoP)Interim conference decisionsPreliminary objection referral to main proceedingsAdmissibility of expert evidenceParallel Belgian proceedings
- 49D32490AFB5A39178B475FBB99F1341_en.pdf2024-10-29EN
- 96BB25961ACFC7230C9EDB1E80F8A243_en.pdf2025-07-31EN
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
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCANote: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: UPC Rules of Procedure on admissibility of evidenceNote: 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
RespondentLegal basis: UPC Rules of ProcedureReason: 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.
Browse other cases on this principle.
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.