TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mb v Sioen (CFI, 31 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a decision of 31 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_9/2024), the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (Judges Johansson, presiding and judge-rapporteur, Härmand, Zana and Vandeberg, technically qualified judge) largely upheld the infringement action brought by TEXPORT, as exclusive licensee, against Sioen NV under claims 1 and 10 of EP 2 186 428 B2 (fabric structure for protective clothing). It granted an injunction in sixteen States, damages in principle, interim damages of EUR 50,000, information, recall and destruction, but refused publication. The decision is useful on the licensee’s standing, offers made in a public tender and the territorial reach of the injunction despite pending national proceedings.

Facts and procedure

After a warning letter of 1 June 2023 concerning the « 868 Twin » product in Latvia, Sioen brought a declaration of non-infringement action in Belgium in September 2023, TEXPORT sued before the UPC in January 2024, Sioen then sought revocation of the Belgian part of the patent in February 2024 (paragraphs 3 to 6). The patent had been maintained in amended form before the EPO, claim 1 requiring a « waffle structure » (paragraphs 10 and 11). Sioen’s preliminary objection (jurisdiction, stay, standing) was dismissed by order of 29 October 2024, standing being referred to the main proceedings (paragraphs 6 and 7). The oral hearing took place on 11 February 2025.

The applicable law

The Division applies Articles 24, 25 to 30, 34, 47(2), 63, 64, 67, 68, 69 and 82 UPCA, Rules 118, 119, 150, 191 and 354.1 RoP, Article 64(3) EPC, Directive 2004/48/EC and Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. Since Sioen did not explain how Portuguese law departed from the UPCA, the Division presumes they correspond (paragraph 27).

Question

Does the exclusive licensee have standing, does a « waffle structure » require a particular knitting technique or an identical appearance on both sides, and is taking part in a lost public tender an infringing offer?

Decision

A document of 9 January 2024 confirming the exclusive licence suffices to establish standing under Article 47(2) UPCA (paragraphs 34 to 37). A « waffle structure » is a three-dimensional structure with hollows on at least one side, not limited to a knitting technique or to a fabric identical on both sides (paragraphs 56 to 61), the « Samuele 3 » knit has it and literal infringement is established (paragraphs 66 and 67). Taking part in a public tender in Portugal with an offer originating from Sioen is an infringing offer even though the tender was lost (paragraph 70). The injunction covers Belgium despite the pending Belgian proceedings but excludes Romania and Malta, where the patent is not in force (paragraphs 75 to 80). The quantum of damages is left to separate proceedings, with interim damages of EUR 50,000 under Rule 119 RoP (paragraphs 81 to 89). Information is narrowed to avoid an undue burden (paragraph 96), the recall excludes end consumers (paragraphs 105 and 114) and publication is refused for want of sufficient reasons (paragraph 101). Penalties reach EUR 10,000 per breach of the injunction and EUR 1,000 per day of delay for the other measures (paragraph 118). Sioen bears the costs, with an interim award of EUR 50,000, the value in dispute being EUR 500,000 (paragraphs 123 and 124), the decision is enforceable after notification under Rule 118.8 RoP (paragraph 128).

Key points for practice

• A written confirmation of the exclusive licence may suffice to establish the licensee’s standing.
• Submitting a bid in a public tender is an infringing offer, whatever the outcome of the tender.
• Pending national non-infringement or revocation actions do not prevent an injunction covering the State concerned.
• Practical point: a request for publication must be specifically reasoned, and recall and information orders are tailored by the Division to what is necessary.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 24, 25 to 30, 34, 47(2), 63, 64, 67, 68, 69 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118, 119, 150, 191 and 354.1

European Patent Convention

Art. 64(3)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Directive 2004/48/EC

Case law cited

Fives ECL v REEL, Court of Appeal, 16 January 2025, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Court of Appeal, 30 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_845/2024 and UPC_CoA_50/2025), Mannheim Local Division, 11 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_159/2024)

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.