Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CoA, 9 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 9 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_12/2025, APL_366/2025), the Court of Appeal set aside the order that Bhagat Textile Engineers pay Oerlikon Textile EUR 15,000 in interim damages for reputational harm, and otherwise dismissed the appeal. Infringement of EP 2 145 848 by displaying a machine at the ITMA fair was not in dispute. The Court found fault on the part of a direct competitor that had failed to monitor patents, but required concrete proof of non-material harm. For practitioners, the decision shows that fault alone is not enough: without proof of economic or non-material loss, nothing is payable.

Facts and procedure

On 14 June 2023 the Milan Local Division had ordered ex parte preservation of evidence concerning a false-twist texturing machine shown by Bhagat at ITMA in Rho. Oerlikon then brought its infringement action. Bhagat contested neither infringement nor validity, but denied any damage and sought a stay pending a parallel revocation action, since withdrawn. In its decision of 4 November 2024 the Milan Local Division found infringement, granted an injunction with a EUR 12,000 penalty, awarded EUR 15,000 in interim damages for reputational harm, set the value in dispute at EUR 750,000 and ordered Bhagat to bear 80% of the costs. Bhagat appealed on 6 January 2025 and provided EUR 19,000 security for costs. At the hearing on 14 November 2025 it withdrew its requests on the stay and on the first instance value in dispute.

The applicable law

Article 68 UPCA, which implements Article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC, distinguishes an infringer who knew or had reasonable grounds to know (paragraphs 1 to 3) from one who did not (paragraph 4), non-material harm may be taken into account under paragraph 3(a) (paragraphs 18 to 21). Interim damages fall under Rule 119 and the allocation of costs under Article 69 UPCA.

Question

Does a direct competitor that displays an infringing machine at a trade fair act with fault within Article 68(1) UPCA, and can the patentee recover for reputational harm on the basis of general statements in the trade press?

Decision

Oerlikon offered no evidence of economic loss or unfair profits (paragraph 22). Fault was established: Bhagat, a major international manufacturer and direct competitor of Oerlikon, should have monitored the patents in force, which amounts at least to negligence (paragraphs 23 to 25). Non-material harm, however, was not proved: general statements by Bhagat’s managing partner in a press article of 13 July 2023 did not show damage to Oerlikon’s reputation, and material raised for the first time at the hearing (a QR code panel, a video, an expert report of 14 June 2023) only showed Bhagat’s presence at the fair and how the machine works, the Court left its admissibility open, as it would not change the outcome (paragraphs 26 to 30). The first instance costs allocation was upheld: the absence of a warning letter was explained by the short fair and the urgency, and Bhagat’s offers were too generic and carried no penalty (paragraphs 31 to 37). Appeal costs were split 80% to Bhagat and 20% to Oerlikon, and the value of the appeal was set at the lowest band, up to EUR 250,000 (paragraphs 38 to 40).

Key points for practice

• A professional operator that fails to monitor its direct competitors’ patents acts at least negligently within Article 68(1) UPCA (paragraphs 23 to 25).
• Non-material harm requires specific proof of damage to the patentee’s reputation. General statements by the infringer are not enough (paragraphs 26 to 30).
• A generic cease and desist offer with no penalty does not allow the claimant to be blamed for incurring unnecessary costs (paragraphs 31 to 37).
• Practical point: a patentee acting on a trade fair display should gather concrete or quantified evidence of its loss from the outset, or the award may disappear on appeal.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 68 and 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 112.3(c), 118, 119, 192 and 265

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 13

Case law cited

Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences, Court of Appeal, 4 October 2024

Related decisions

• Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers, 4 November 2024, Milan Local Division decision under appeal.
• Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers, 9 May 2025, first instance decision on costs.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.