UPC CFI 575/2025
Jun 25, 2025·EP2563695 · TELESCOPIC BELT CONVEYOR
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Respondents
- Sovex Systems B.V.Operating co.
- Solvest Participatie V B.V.Operating co.
- Solvest Participatie VI B.V.Operating co.
- Solvest Participatie VII B.V.Operating co.
- Solvink B.V.Operating co.
- De Kleine Beuk B.V.Operating co.
- Hemtech d.o.o.Operating co.
Representatives- Jacques van Breda-Los & Stigter
- Dick van Engelen-Ventoux Advocaten
- Division
- Mannheim LD
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringHandling
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Oct 22, 2025
- Last decision
- Sep 18, 2026
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Mannheim LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Peter Tochtermann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Marjolein Visser | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Dirk Böttcher | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Giorgio Checcacci | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. (2 cases)·Sovex Systems B.V. (2 cases)
This dispute contains 1 other proceedings
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Mannheim LD·2025
- 2026-09-18InfringementPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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)
- 2026-02-12Preliminary objectionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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
- 2025-10-22Preliminary objectionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Publication of decision | 2026-09-18 | Not public |
| Case closed | 2026-09-18 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-09-18 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-09-18 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-09-03 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-09-03 | Not public |
| Document Defendant | 2026-09-03 | Not public |
| Document Defendant | 2026-09-03 | Not public |
| Deliberation opened | 2026-07-21 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2026-07-17 | Not public |
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.
Mannheim Local Division has competence over Dutch defendants under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on sufficiently asserted German infringement
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA; CoA 28 November 2025 UPC_CoA_317/2025 (Barco v Yealink)Note: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 31 UPCA; Art. 71b Brussels I Recast RegulationNote: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: CoA 28 November 2025 UPC_CoA_317/2025 headnotes 3-5Note: 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.
Case against Sovex (D1) should be transferred to The Hague as Sovex is domiciled in the Netherlands
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(a)-(b) UPCAReason: 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
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA; CoA 28 November 2025Reason: 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
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 267 TFEUReason: Court declined the referral request citing ample existing UPC Court of Appeal case law resolving the issues.
Browse other cases on this principle.