TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Sioen (CFI, ORD_16070/2024, 29 October 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 29 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_9/2024, ACT_953/2024), the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division dismissed the preliminary objection of Sioen, sued by TEXPORT for infringement of EP 2 186 428 in Latvia and Portugal, which had asked the UPC to decline jurisdiction or stay in favour of the Dutch-language Enterprise Court of Brussels, seised earlier with an action for a declaration of non-infringement against the patent proprietor. The order applies the Brussels I recast lis pendens rules between the UPC and a national court.

Question

Does an action for a declaration of non-infringement brought in Belgium against the proprietor require the UPC, later seised by the licensee, to decline jurisdiction or stay under Articles 29 to 31 of Regulation 1215/2012?

Decision

No. Art. 83(1) UPCA allows parallel national proceedings during the transitional period, including actions for declarations of non-infringement. The proprietor and TEXPORT are distinct persons whose interests are not so identical that a judgment against one would be res judicata against the other, so Articles 29 and 31 do not apply, in the light of the CJEU’s Tatry judgment. As the Belgian court considers itself competent only for the Belgian part of the patent, while the UPC claim concerns Latvia and Portugal, Article 30 does not apply either. The later Belgian revocation action does not justify a stay. TEXPORT’s standing as exclusive licensee was left to the main proceedings, as the parties had agreed.

Key points for practice

• Identity of parties under Article 29 of the Brussels I recast is not presumed between a proprietor and the licensee company he manages.
• Practical point: a national action for a declaration of non-infringement confined to one territory does not block UPC proceedings concerning other states.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 31, 34, 47(2) and 83(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 21.1, 172.1, 220.2 and 295(l)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts. 24(4), 29, 30, 31(1) and 71c(2)

Case law cited

CJEU, 6 December 1994, C-406/92, Tatry, UPC Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, UPC_CoA_227/2024, UPC Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024, UPC_CoA_188/2024.

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.