ORD_65145/2024 | EP2186428 | UPC Decision Search

	Type Order Decision	Reference	Court Division Brüssel Brussels Copenhagen Den Haag Düsseldorf Hamburg Helsinki Lisbon Lissabon Luxembourg Luxemburg Mailand Mannheim Milan München Munich Nordic Baltic Regional Division Paris The Hague Vienna			Tags
29 October, 2024	Order	ORD_65145/2024	Nordic Baltic Region…	EP2186428	Rule 370.6 ...	Please log in to add tags.	Please log in to add notes. Please log in to add tags. Show on UPC ORD_65145/2024 29 October, 2024 Order Summary (AI generated) Parties TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Sioen NV Registry Information Registry Number: ACT_953/2024 Court Division: Nordic Baltic Regional Division Type of Action: Infringement Action Language of Proceedings: EN Patent at issue EP2186428 Cited Legal Standards Rule 152.3 Rule 175 Rule 370.6 Documents Download Order (EN) Add a custom note or summary to this decision Styles Text Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Bold ⌘B Italic ⌘I Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S Bullet list Ordered list Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B Insert link ⌘K Insert link Unlink Align Left Center Right Nordic-Baltic Regional Division Order: ORD_59030/2024 Action: ACT_953/2024 UPC_CFI_9/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 2 9 October 2024 CLAIMANT TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH , Franz Sauer Straße 30 - 5020 - Salzburg - AT Represented by Thomas Adocker, Michael Babeluk and Martin Babeluk DEFENDANT Sioen NV , Fabriekstraat 23 - 8850 - Ardooie - BE Represented by Véronique Pede and Antonin Lambrecht PATENT AT ISSUE EP2186428 DECIDING JUDGE This order has been issued by the judge-rapporteur/presiding judge Stefan Johansson COMPOSITION OF FULL PANEL Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Legally qualified judge Legally qualified judge LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS Infringement proceedings Stefan Johansson Kai Härmand Alima Zana SUMMARY OF FACTS The Court held an interim conference on 16 October 2024 by video. At the request of the Defendant, the Court refrained from closing the written procedure before the interim conference. This Order sets out the decisions taken during -or following -the interim conference. The value of the case The Claimant has suggested that the value of the action/proceeding is set to 500.000 EUR (Rule 370.6 and Rule 152.3). The Defendant has not objected to setting the value to 500.000 EUR. The Court agrees to set the value to said amount. The parallel case in Brussels and the Preliminary Objection The Parties informed the Court of the parallel case in Brussels and submitted oral comments on what this, according to them, meant for the Preliminary Objection. During the discussion, the Defendant agreed that request V in the Preliminary Objection (concerning the Claimant's right to initiate these proceedings) should be referred to the main proceeding. After the discussion, the Court concluded that there is no need for further written comments. The Court also decided to close the written procedure, and to issue a separate order on the Preliminary Objection which may have the effect that some requests in the objection are referred to the main proceedings. The Defendant's r equests to exclude arguments and written statements At the interim conference, the Defendant clarified that it 'only' requests that the Court dismisses (excludes from the proceedings) the written statement/opinion by Mr and the two written statements by Mr as well as the Claimant's reasoning in the reply to the statement of defence that relates to these documents (paragraphs 44-46, 70-73, 109-110, 117119 and 155-161). The Defendant's main arguments for these requests are that the Claimant could and should have included this in the Statement of Claim, that the first statement by Mr is not intended for these proceedings and does not comply with the formal requirements in Rule 175 ff. RoP, that the second statement by Mr is dated after the Defendants' rejoinder and did not even exist when the reply to the Statement of Defence was submitted, and that the Declaration of Impartiality of the State Testing Centre does not allow its head -Mr -to provide ex parte reports to a commercial company such as Texport as a party in legal proceedings. The Claimant has opposed these requests. According to the Claimant, these additional arguments and evidence were submitted as a reply to the arguments and evidence presented by the Defendant in its statement of defence. When the Defendant by its rejoinder made the Claimant realize that it had submitted the wrong version of the statement by Mr Mr clarified one or two sentences in the written statement before it was submitted. This is why it is dated after the rejoinder. The Claimant s comments concerning Mr ' written statement are incorrect and irrelevant. In the Courts view, the further arguments and evidence submitted by the Claimant must be seen as a justified reaction and reply to the Statement of Defence. Therefore, the starting point is that they should be allowed, unless there are other reasons for excluding them. It is, according to the Court, irrelevant if Mr employer would have problems with his written statement in this case. This does not make the statement inadmissable. When it comes to the written statements by Mr the Court notes that the reply to the Statement of Defence cites a number of quotations from Mr that cannot be found in the written statement that was attached, but they are included in the second written statement that was submitted after the Defendant had raised this question in its rejoinder. Furthermore, the first written statement explicitly states that it has been drafted for the proceedings in Belgium. Therefore, it is in the Court s view obvious that the Claimant attached the ' wrong version to its reply to theStatement of Defence. The fact that the second written statement is dated after the rejoinder could potentially cause problems. However, in this case it was filed almost immediately after the rejoinder -which made the Claimant aware of its mistake -and does not contain much more information than what was described in the reply to the Statement of Defence. Therefore, the Court finds that it is admissable. Accordingly, the Defendant's requests shall be dismissed. Request for a TQJ The Claimant has requested that a Technically Qualified Judge shall be allocated to the case, preferably from mechanics, if possible with experience from textile fabrics/structures. The Defendant has not objected to the allocation of a Technically Qualified Judge, and agreed on the preferred expertice of this judge. The Court confirmed that it will request the allocation of such a judge. Practical arrangements for the oral hearing The oral hearing will take place at the Nordic-Bal c Regional Division in Stockholm, Sweden, on 11 February 2025. Both Parties intend to submit samples of the textiles in question. Since they are not based in Stockholm, none of them see the need for the other Party to submit these samples before the day of the oral hearing. For these reasons, the Court informed the Parties that it is sufficient if they bring these samples to the oral hearing. Both Parties confirmed that they don't see the need to hear wittnesses/experts. Therefore, the Court confirmed that no witnesses/experts will be heard. After consulting the Parties, the Court concluded that the oral hearing will be structured as follows: -After the introduction by the Court, the Parties will be given not more than 1,5 hours each to present their case. During these presentations, the Court expects the Parties to focus on important facts that are disputed, in particular whether the Defendant's products have a knitted layer/material that consists of a waffle structure (in the meaning of the Patent), whether the Defendant's participation in a public tender (that was not granted) constitutes an offering/offer to supply the products, and any additional comments on the requested remedies. The Parties may choose in which order they deal with these questions in these oral submissions. -After lunch, there will be time for short responses by the Parties and additional questions by the Court. -The Parties are encouraged to use PowerPoint-presentations. If they intend to do so, they shall upload these presentations as a reply to this order at least 24 hours before the oral hearing. -The Parties may submit short pleading notes (not more than 15 pages), but are not obliged to do so. If they wish to submit pleading notes, they shall upload them as a reply to this order at least 24 hours before the oral hearing. Estimation of costs The Parties have agreed that the time for the submission of the preliminary estimate of the legal costs shall be set to a date about one month after this order has been issued. ORDER The value of the action/proceeding is set to 500.000 EUR The written procedure is hereby closed. The Court will deal with the Preliminary Objection in a separate order. The Defendant's requests to exclude arguments and written statements are dismissed. The Court will request the allocation of a Technically Qualified Judge. The oral hearing will take place at the Nordic-Bal c Regional Division in Stockholm, Sweden, on 11 February 2025. It is sufficient that the Parties submit the envisaged samples of the textiles at the beginning of the oral hearing. The Parties shall, by 2 December 2024, submit a preliminary estimate of the legal costs that they will seek to recover. The document shall be uploaded in the workflow created by this order. If the parties intends to use PowerPoint-presentations and/or submit short pleading notes (any pleading notes shall not be more than 15 pages), these documents shall be submitted at least 24 hours before the oral hearing. The documents shall be uploaded in a workflow created by this order, which will be visable when the opposing party has submitted the document referred to in paragraph 8. Done and delivered in Stockholm on 29 October 2024. Stefan Erik by Stefan Erik Johansson Date: 2024.10.29 Digitally signed Johansson 17:20:23 +01'00' Stefan Johansson

ORD_65145/2024

Nordic-Baltic Regional Division

Order: ORD_59030/2024 Action: ACT_953/2024

UPC_CFI_9/2024 Order

of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 2 9 October 2024

CLAIMANT

TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH , Franz Sauer Straße 30 - 5020 - Salzburg - AT

Represented by Thomas Adocker, Michael Babeluk and Martin Babeluk

DEFENDANT

Sioen NV , Fabriekstraat 23 - 8850 - Ardooie - BE

Represented by Véronique Pede and Antonin Lambrecht

PATENT AT ISSUE

EP2186428

DECIDING JUDGE

This order has been issued by the judge-rapporteur/presiding judge Stefan Johansson

COMPOSITION OF FULL PANEL

Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Legally qualified judge Legally qualified judge

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

English

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Infringement proceedings

Stefan Johansson Kai Härmand Alima Zana

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Court held an interim conference on 16 October 2024 by video. At the request of the Defendant, the Court refrained from closing the written procedure before the interim conference. This Order sets out the decisions taken during -or following -the interim conference.

The value of the case

The Claimant has suggested that the value of the action/proceeding is set to 500.000 EUR (Rule 370.6 and Rule 152.3).

The Defendant has not objected to setting the value to 500.000 EUR.

The Court agrees to set the value to said amount.

The parallel case in Brussels and the Preliminary Objection

The Parties informed the Court of the parallel case in Brussels and submitted oral comments on what this, according to them, meant for the Preliminary Objection. During the discussion, the Defendant agreed that request V in the Preliminary Objection (concerning the Claimant's right to initiate these proceedings) should be referred to the main proceeding.

After the discussion, the Court concluded that there is no need for further written comments. The Court also decided to close the written procedure, and to issue a separate order on the Preliminary Objection which may have the effect that some requests in the objection are referred to the main proceedings.

The Defendant's r equests to exclude arguments and written statements

At the interim conference, the Defendant clarified that it 'only' requests that the Court dismisses (excludes from the proceedings) the written statement/opinion by Mr and the two written statements by Mr as well as the Claimant's reasoning in the reply to the statement of defence that relates to these documents (paragraphs 44-46, 70-73, 109-110, 117119 and 155-161).

The Defendant's main arguments for these requests are that the Claimant could and should have included this in the Statement of Claim, that the first statement by Mr is not intended for these proceedings and does not comply with the formal requirements in Rule 175 ff. RoP, that the second statement by Mr is dated after the Defendants' rejoinder and did not even exist when the reply to the Statement of Defence was submitted, and that the Declaration of Impartiality of the State Testing Centre does not allow its head -Mr -to provide ex parte reports to a commercial company such as Texport as a party in legal proceedings.

The Claimant has opposed these requests. According to the Claimant, these additional arguments and evidence were submitted as a reply to the arguments and evidence presented by the Defendant in its statement of defence. When the Defendant by its rejoinder made the Claimant realize that it had submitted the wrong version of the statement by Mr Mr clarified one or two sentences in the written statement before it was submitted. This is why it is

dated after the rejoinder. The Claimant s comments concerning Mr ' written statement are incorrect and irrelevant.

In the Courts view, the further arguments and evidence submitted by the Claimant must be seen as a justified reaction and reply to the Statement of Defence. Therefore, the starting point is that they should be allowed, unless there are other reasons for excluding them.

It is, according to the Court, irrelevant if Mr employer would have problems with his written statement in this case. This does not make the statement inadmissable.

When it comes to the written statements by Mr the Court notes that the reply to the Statement of Defence cites a number of quotations from Mr that cannot be found in the written statement that was attached, but they are included in the second written statement that was submitted after the Defendant had raised this question in its rejoinder. Furthermore, the first written statement explicitly states that it has been drafted for the proceedings in Belgium. Therefore, it is in the Court s view obvious that the Claimant attached the ' wrong version to its reply to theStatement of Defence. The fact that the second written statement is dated after the rejoinder could potentially cause problems. However, in this case it was filed almost immediately after the rejoinder -which made the Claimant aware of its mistake -and does not contain much more information than what was described in the reply to the Statement of Defence. Therefore, the Court finds that it is admissable.

Accordingly, the Defendant's requests shall be dismissed.

Request for a TQJ

The Claimant has requested that a Technically Qualified Judge shall be allocated to the case, preferably from mechanics, if possible with experience from textile fabrics/structures.

The Defendant has not objected to the allocation of a Technically Qualified Judge, and agreed on the preferred expertice of this judge.

The Court confirmed that it will request the allocation of such a judge.

Practical arrangements for the oral hearing

The oral hearing will take place at the Nordic-Bal c Regional Division in Stockholm, Sweden, on 11 February 2025.

Both Parties intend to submit samples of the textiles in question. Since they are not based in Stockholm, none of them see the need for the other Party to submit these samples before the day of the oral hearing. For these reasons, the Court informed the Parties that it is sufficient if they bring these samples to the oral hearing.

Both Parties confirmed that they don't see the need to hear wittnesses/experts. Therefore, the Court confirmed that no witnesses/experts will be heard.

After consulting the Parties, the Court concluded that the oral hearing will be structured as follows:

-After the introduction by the Court, the Parties will be given not more than 1,5 hours each to present their case. During these presentations, the Court expects the Parties to focus on

important facts that are disputed, in particular whether the Defendant's products have a knitted layer/material that consists of a waffle structure (in the meaning of the Patent), whether the Defendant's participation in a public tender (that was not granted) constitutes an offering/offer to supply the products, and any additional comments on the requested remedies. The Parties may choose in which order they deal with these questions in these oral submissions.

-After lunch, there will be time for short responses by the Parties and additional questions by the Court.
-The Parties are encouraged to use PowerPoint-presentations. If they intend to do so, they shall upload these presentations as a reply to this order at least 24 hours before the oral hearing.
-The Parties may submit short pleading notes (not more than 15 pages), but are not obliged to do so. If they wish to submit pleading notes, they shall upload them as a reply to this order at least 24 hours before the oral hearing.

Estimation of costs

The Parties have agreed that the time for the submission of the preliminary estimate of the legal costs shall be set to a date about one month after this order has been issued.

ORDER

1. The value of the action/proceeding is set to 500.000 EUR
1. The written procedure is hereby closed.
1. The Court will deal with the Preliminary Objection in a separate order.
1. The Defendant's requests to exclude arguments and written statements are dismissed.
1. The Court will request the allocation of a Technically Qualified Judge.
1. The oral hearing will take place at the Nordic-Bal c Regional Division in Stockholm, Sweden, on 11 February 2025.
1. It is sufficient that the Parties submit the envisaged samples of the textiles at the beginning of the oral hearing.
1. The Parties shall, by 2 December 2024, submit a preliminary estimate of the legal costs that they will seek to recover. The document shall be uploaded in the workflow created by this order.
1. If the parties intends to use PowerPoint-presentations and/or submit short pleading notes (any pleading notes shall not be more than 15 pages), these documents shall be submitted at least 24 hours before the oral hearing. The documents shall be uploaded in a workflow created by this order, which will be visable when the opposing party has submitted the document referred to in paragraph 8.

Done and delivered in Stockholm on 29 October 2024.

Stefan Erik by Stefan Erik Johansson Date: 2024.10.29 Digitally signed Johansson 17:20:23 +01'00'

ORD_65145/2024

Stefan Johansson