Opens in a new tab

Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 17 December 2024)

Date17 December 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMilan (IT) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Registry referenceACT_549550/2023 · ORD_598537/2023
PartiesOerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v. Himson Engineering Private Limited

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a procedural order of 17 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_240/2023, ACT_549550/2023), issued after the interim conference, the Milan Local Division organised the close of the interim procedure in Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG’s action for infringement of EP 2145848 against Himson Engineering Private Limited, which counterclaimed for revocation. It restricted the use of two late-filed prior art documents, refused for now the request for information and set the oral hearing for 11 June 2025. Its views remain provisional.

Question

How should late-filed prior art and a request for information on the origin and distribution of the machines be handled before the oral hearing?

Decision

Subject to the final decision, the panel took the view that both the action and the counterclaim concern claim 1 only, and invited Himson to reduce its inventive step attacks (section 2.3). Under the front-loading principle, the late-filed documents DE 042 and US 795 may be considered only in relation to the auxiliary requests. Uncontested witness facts are deemed admitted (Rule 171.2) and the videos were admitted (section 2.4). The request for information was not necessary at this stage, as Himson stated it had neither sold nor distributed the machines in the territory covered. It may be raised in later damages proceedings (section 2.5). The value of the action was set, by agreement, in the bracket up to EUR 2,000,000 (section 2.9).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 54, Art. 60 and Art. 76(6)
Rules of Procedure
Preamble (point 3), Rules 30.2, 119, 171.2, 185 and 192 et seq.
Case law cited
Paris Central Division, 27 November 2024 (No. 571565/2023)

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La division locale de Milan limite l'examen des antériorités tardives aux requêtes subsidiaires, écarte pour l'heure la demande d'informations, fixe la valeur du litige et l'audience au 11 juin 2025.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 145 848
False twist texturing machine
recorded proprietor: Oerlikon Textile GmbH and Co KG
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 19 other decision(s): Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 4 November 2024) · Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 13 June 2023) · Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CoA, 9 December 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CoA, 30 October 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 9 September 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 29 July 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 9 May 2025) · Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CFI, 20 February 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.