UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

ACT_953/2024

Tissue design for protective clothing

InfringementMain Infringement ActionNordic-Baltic RDInfringement Action—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: 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 evidence

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Exclusion of expert statements and associated claimant reasoning from proceedings

    RespondentLegal basis: UPC Rules of Procedure

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
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

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.