Honeywell victorious in UPC Bendy Boom conveyor dispute with Solvest group

The dispute concerns EP 2 563 695, protecting a telescopic conveyor belt with a pivotable conveyor section that can be retracted and nested within an adjacent conveyor unit. The patent, originally filed by Sovex Limited in 2011, was assigned to Honeywell Control Systems in January 2022 and is in force in Germany, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Latvia, and Italy. It covers the so-called Bendy Boom, a conveyor used for loading and unloading vans, lorries, trailers and containers.

The local division Mannheim granted an injunction, ordered the communication of information covering the period since 13 May 2024, and declared the defendants liable for damages (case ID: UPC_CFI_575/2025). It awarded provisional damages of €75,000 and set penalties of up to €100,000 per product or per day for violations of the injunction. In addition, the court fixed costs at €175,000 in favour of Honeywell, based on an agreement between the parties.

In a counterclaim for revocation, the defendants had challenged the patent on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step but the court rejected both attacks (case ID: UPC-CFI-0001135/2025).

Joint history

The commercial relationship between the parties dates back to a 2019 manufacturing and supply agreement between Honeywell subsidiary Transnorm and Solvest Participatie V. In February 2022, that agreement was replaced by a licence agreement between Honeywell International and Solvest Participatie VII covering the patent-in-suit and the Sovex trademark. Honeywell terminated the licence in March 2024, citing missing sales reports and unpaid royalties, with the termination taking effect on 13 May 2024.

Honeywell subsequently pursued the licence issue before The Hague District Court, where an oral hearing took place in June 2026, while filing the infringement action at the UPC’s local division Mannheim. The defendants sought to have the UPC proceedings stayed or consolidated with the Dutch case, but the judge-rapporteur dismissed those requests in May 2026.

Licence defence rejected

The judges in Mannheim found that the defendants had not sufficiently substantiated their argument that they still had Honeywell’s consent to use the patent, either under the 2022 licence or under an alleged perpetual 2024 licence agreement. The defendants had largely referred to their written submissions in the parallel Dutch proceedings without filing the underlying exhibits or responding to Honeywell’s arguments in the UPC case.

The panel made up of presiding judge Peter Tochtermann, judge-rapporteur Marjolein Visser, legally qualified judge Dirk Böttcher, and technically qualified judge Giorgio Checcacci held that a mere reference to submissions in other proceedings does not amount to a sufficiently substantiated defence under Rule 24 RoP. The defendants had argued that developing the licence arguments in full would be too costly, but the panel found that the consequences of the resulting evidentiary gaps had to be borne by them.

On the request for a stay under Rule 295(m) RoP, the court weighed the advanced stage of the UPC proceedings and the expected delay from a possible Dutch appeal against the defendants’ interest in awaiting the outcome of the national litigation. It concluded that the interest in expeditious and predictable proceedings prevailed, particularly since the licence defence had to be dismissed for lack of substantiation.

Attribution of infringing acts

The panel differentiated between the seven defendants when assessing liability. It held that VeyorEx, formerly Sovex Systems, directly infringed the patent by offering the Bendy Boom through its website, the Sovex website and the Sovex brochure, all directed at UPC contracting member states where the patent is in force. Manufacturer Hemtech, based in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was also found to be actively involved in the threatened placement on the market.

Solvest Participatie VII, as former licensee and sole shareholder of VeyorEx, was held liable as an infringer for failing to instruct VeyorEx to cease the infringing activities after termination of the licence. The panel also attributed the infringing acts to the statutory directors Solvink and De Kleine Beuk, applying the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in Belkin vs Philips. By contrast, the claims against Solvest Participatie V and Solvest Participatie VI were dismissed for lack of substantiated infringing acts of their own.

Dutch teams in Mannheim

Claimant Honeywell Control Systems relied on an Amsterdam-based team from Simmons & Simmons with Oscar Lamme in the lead. Munich-based counsel and patent attorney Florian Laus advised on the technological aspects of the case and IP associate Max Timmerman also worked on the case.

Oscar Lamme

The defendants around Solvest were represented by Utrecht-based boutique Ventoux with partner Dick van Engelen leading the case. He specialises in transactions and litigation concerning IP and IT. He worked on the case with patent attorney Jacques van Breda, partner at patent attorney firm Los & Stigter.