Honeywell v. VeyorEx — UPC Orders Six-Country Halt to Bendy Boom Conveyor Sales

Background

Honeywell sued VeyorEx, several Solvest-related companies, and Hemtech over the Bendy Boom telescopic belt conveyor. Honeywell owns European Patent EP 2 563 695 B1, which claims a telescopic conveyor with a pivotable section that nests within an adjacent conveyor unit when retracted. The defendants had manufactured or sold the product under a license, but Honeywell maintained that the license was terminated after reporting and royalty defaults. The defendants denied infringement, disputed termination, and counterclaimed to revoke the patent for lack of novelty and inventive step.

The Court’s Holding

The Mannheim Local Division held claim 1 valid and infringed. It rejected the defendants’ prior-art attacks, finding the claimed nested pivotable conveyor arrangement novel and inventive. The court also declined to pause the UPC case for parallel Dutch litigation over whether the license remained in force, concluding that a stay was not required for the proper administration of justice.

The court found that VeyorEx, Solvest VII, Solvink, De Kleine Beuk, and Hemtech were responsible for infringing activity after the asserted license termination. It ordered them to stop infringement in Germany, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Latvia, and Italy; provide distribution and sales information; and pay damages. The court awarded €75,000 in provisional damages, imposed potential noncompliance penalties, and dismissed the revocation counterclaim. Claims against some other Solvest entities were not sustained.

Key Takeaways

• A disputed national-law license issue did not prevent the UPC from deciding patent infringement and validity.
• The injunction reaches six UPC member states where the patent remains in force.
• Corporate entities that knowingly allowed related companies’ infringing conduct to continue after license termination could be treated as infringers.
• The patent survived both novelty and inventive-step challenges, while Honeywell received disclosure, damages, and cease-and-desist relief.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the UPC’s ability to resolve a cross-border infringement and revocation dispute in one judgment even when related license litigation is pending nationally. It also shows the practical exposure facing a former licensee and affiliated companies that continue commercial activity after a purported termination: a single UPC judgment can produce multi-country injunctive and monetary relief.