UPC CFI 9/2024
Jan 12, 2024·EP2186428 · Tissue design for protective clothing
Action number: ACT 953/2024
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbHOperating co.
Representatives- Thomas Adocker-Taylor Wessing
- Michael Babeluk-Babeluk Patentanwälte GmbH
- Laura Coucke-Taylor Wessing
Respondents- Sioen NVOperating co.
Representatives- Antonin Lambrecht-CAPE IP Law
- Véronique Pede-CAPE IP Law
- Michaël Moreels-Gevers
- Division
- Nordic-Baltic RD
- Technology
- ChemistrySurface technology, coating
- Other fieldsOther consumer goods
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Oct 29, 2024
- Last decision
- Jul 31, 2025
- EPO Opposition
- Sioen NVAdmissible2014-01-31
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Nordic-Baltic RD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Johansson | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Alima Zana | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Kai Härmand | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Marie-Paule Vandeberg | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH (4 cases)·Sioen NV (4 cases)
This dispute contains 3 other proceedings
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Nordic-Baltic RD·2024
- 2025-07-31Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Patent infringement (found)
- Injunction, recall and destruction
- Damages declaration
- Interim cost award (EUR 50,000)
- Protective workwear patent
- 2024-10-29Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Value of action (R.370.6 RoP)
- Interim conference decisions
- Preliminary objection referral to main proceedings
- Admissibility of expert evidence
- Parallel Belgian proceedings
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| CFI_9-2024 Decision anonymised | 2025-07-31 | Not public |
| DecisionOutcome | 2025-07-31 | Not public |
| Decision on the merits | 2025-07-31 | Not public |
| Decision on the merits | 2025-07-31 | Public |
| Recording document of oral hearing | 2025-02-19 | Not public |
| Recording document of oral hearing | 2025-02-19 | Not public |
| Preliminary_Objection_DecisionOutcome | 2024-12-20 | Not public |
| RoP 105.5 Order - Anonymized | 2024-12-12 | Not public |
| Interim-Procedure-Closure | 2024-12-10 | Not public |
| Summon-Oral-Hearing | 2024-12-10 | Not public |
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.