Honeywell Control Systems v Sovex Systems (CFI, 22 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 22 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_575/2025, EP 2 563 695), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division dismissed the preliminary objection of the seven defendants in Honeywell Control Systems’ infringement action against Sovex Systems, several Solvest companies, Solvink, De Kleine Beuk and Hemtech. The order brings together three recurring questions: international jurisdiction over a manufacturer established outside the EU, competence over shareholders and directors, and a local division’s competence based solely on the accessibility of a website.

Question

Does the UPC have jurisdiction over Hemtech, established in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and over the shareholder and director companies, and may the Mannheim division hear an action against Dutch defendants?

Decision

The objection, lodged within one month of service, is admissible (paragraph 5). As to Hemtech, Art. 71b(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 makes Art. 7(2) applicable irrespective of domicile. It is sufficiently alleged that Hemtech manufactures the products and delivers them in Contracting Member States, the reality of those acts being for the merits (paragraphs 10 to 13). As to the Solvest companies, shareholders or contracting parties, and Solvink and De Kleine Beuk, sole directors, the action is identifiable as an infringement action. Their own liability or liability as instigators or accomplices (Art. 63 UPCA) is for the merits (paragraphs 14 to 22). Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA requires no additional connection: accessibility in Germany of the website or brochure is enough (paragraphs 25 to 27). Costs are reserved to the main proceedings and leave to appeal is refused, the Court of Appeal having already settled the law (paragraphs 30 and 31).

Key points for practice

• A manufacturer established outside the EU may be sued before the UPC at the place of the harmful event, provided deliveries in Contracting Member States are sufficiently alleged.
• A local division’s competence based on the place of infringement requires no particular connection beyond the accessibility of the offer within its territory.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25, 26, 31, 32(1)(a), 33(1) and (2) and 63

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.1, 21.1 and 220.2

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 6, 7(2), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

Aylo v Dish, 3 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_188/2024), Roku v Dolby and Sun Patent Trust, 6 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_288/2025, UPC_CoA_290/2025 and UPC_CoA_291/2025), Philips v Belkin, 3 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_683/2024 and UPC_CoA_19/2025), all Court of Appeal

Related decisions

• Honeywell Control Systems v Sovex Systems, 12 February 2026, later order on a preliminary objection in the same action.

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.