UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, 22 October 2025: jurisdiction UPC regarding managing directors

07-03-2026 Print this page
Editor:
Dick van Engelen and Navya Vade
IPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex

Preliminary objections rejected (R. 19 RoP). International jurisdiction regarding defendant Hemtech, not domiciled in a Member State (Article 71(b)(2) Brussels). The fact that Honeywell did not (also) explicitly mention this paragraph 2 of Art. 71b Brussels I recast Regulation in the SoC, does not mean that international jurisdiction of the Court should be denied. Honeywell did state the facts and ultimate ground and principle for international jurisdiction it relies on, namely Art 7(2) Brussels I recast Regulation, […]. Honeywell also explicitly stated that it has suffered and suffers damage in Germany and other UPC Member States where the patent is valid because the Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the patent in those States. The UPC has competence (Article 32 UPCA, Article 33 UPCA, Article 63 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA) with regard to managing directors (defendants Solvest V, Solvest VI, Solvest VII, Solvink and De Kleine Beuk) to whom infringing acts may be attributable since the action against them can be identified as an alleged action for actual or threatened infringement within the meaning of Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA. Whether these Defendants in fact commit infringing acts themselves and/or whether infringing acts of other entities are attributable to them in the sense that they are an “infringer” within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 25 UPCA, is a question to be addressed in the case on the merits. It is sufficiently asserted that infringement has occurred or may occur in Germany (Article 33 UPCA). Even when applied in a restricted way, Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA provides for competence of the Local Division Mannheim in this case. The license agreement covers the territory of all of continental Europe and since the (alleged) termination of this agreement in March 2024, Defendants continue to market the allegedly infringing products. It is not required that the website Honeywell relies on is specifically directed at Germany, it suffices that the website is accessible within the territory of Germany.

 

IPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex