1 Key takeaways
A licence defence under Art. 25 UPCA must be substantiated within the UPC proceedings themselves; mere references to submissions in parallel national proceedings are insufficient (Art. 25 UPCA, R. 24 RoP)
– The defendants relied on a licence agreement also disputed in parallel Dutch proceedings, but only referred to the submissions in the Dutch proceedings without filing the underlying exhibits or rebutting the claimant’s counter-arguments. The Court held this failed to meet the substantiation standard required by R. 24 RoP.
Companies and (statutory) directors who know of infringement by affiliates and fail to stop it, despite being able to do so, can be held liable as accessories (Art. 25, 63 UPCA)
– Under Belkin v. Philips (UPC_CoA_534/2024, 3 October 2025, headnotes 3–5), an “infringer” also covers instigators, co-perpetrators and accessories; mere status as a managing director is insufficient, and liability arises only where conduct exceeds a director’s typical duties – in particular by deliberately using the company to infringe, or by knowing of the infringement and its unlawfulness and failing to act although it is possible and reasonable to do so, with a director generally entitled to rely on legal advice until a first-instance infringement decision. The LD Mannheim held that these principles established in Belkin v. Philips are not only applicable to natural persons acting in their capacity as directors but also to statutory directors.
– A parent entity that was itself party to a (now terminated) licence agreement, made it available to its affiliates and (after termination) must have known of both the continued infringement by its wholly-owned subsidiary and its unlawfulness becomes liable by failing to instruct that subsidiary to cease.
– A company that is merely the shareholder of a manufacturing entity, absent any act exceeding its typical shareholder role, does not thereby become an infringer, instigator, co-perpetrator or accessory, as the insufficiency of mere directorship applies a fortiori to a mere shareholder. The same applies to an entity against which no infringing acts of its own are alleged, which holds no controlling relationship over the actively infringing entities and whose conduct does not exceed its ordinary corporate role.
– A manufacturer that is expressly named as the production facility for the attacked embodiment and cooperates with the entity responsible for offering and selling it is actively involved in the (threatened) placing of the product on the market. This involvement extends to the Contracting Member States where the patent is valid, as the manufacturer is the foreseen producer of a product intended for and shipped to that market. This holds true irrespective of whether the manufacturer or a third party carries out the actual transport, and notwithstanding that the physical manufacturing itself takes place in a State outside the patent’s territorial scope.
A stay under R. 295(m) RoP requires a genuine balancing of interests and is not warranted merely because related national proceedings (also involving the identical license defence issue) are pending
– Pursuant to R. 295 (m) RoP, the court may stay the proceedings in any case where the proper administration of justice so requires. One of the court’s aims is to provide expeditious and high-quality decisions, striking a fair balance between the interests of right holders and other parties and taking into account the need for proportionality and flexibility (preamble to the UPCA, para. 6, points 2-6 of the preamble to the RoP)
– The court weighed the advanced stage of the UPC proceedings, the likelihood of appeal in the national proceedings, and the failure of the licence defence on its merits, concluding that (in respect to the license defence issue) the interest in expeditious UPC proceedings outweighed the defendants’ interest in awaiting the national outcome.
2 Division
LD Mannheim
3 UPC number
UPC_CFI_575/2025 and UPC_CFI_1135/2025
4 Type of proceedings
Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation
5 Parties
Claimant: Honeywell Control Systems Ltd.
Defendants: VeyorEx B.V., Solvest Participatie V B.V., Solvest Participatie VI B.V., Solvest Participatie VII B.V., Solvink B.V., De Kleine Beuk B.V., Hemtech d.o.o.
6 Patent(s)
EP 2 563 695
7 Jurisdictions
UPC
8 Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 25, 63, 67, 68, 69, 82 UPCA, Art. 54, 56, 69, 138 EPC, Rule 24, 118(5), 119, 191, 295(m), 333, 354.3 RoP
Click here to read the full report.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]