UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Jun 25, 2025

UPC_CFI_575/2025

TELESCOPIC BELT CONVEYOR

InfringementMain Infringement ActionMannheim LDInfringementWritten Phase
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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 Regulation

    Note: 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 3-5

    Note: 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.

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

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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(a)-(b) UPCA

    Reason: 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 2025

    Reason: 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 TFEU

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

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
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

Browse other cases on this principle.