A German court has ruled that the Dutch Solvest group and Bosnian manufacturer Hemtech infringed Honeywell’s patent for telescopic conveyor belts. The decision prohibits them from distributing the so-called Bendy Boom system, a technology designed for retracting and nesting conveyors to facilitate the unloading of goods.
The Unified Patent Court’s Mannheim division found that the companies violated EP 2 563 695, a patent originally filed by Sovex Limited in 2011 and assigned to Honeywell Control Systems in January 2022. This patent, in force in Germany, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Latvia, and Italy, covers a telescopic conveyor belt with a pivotable section that retracts and nests within an adjacent unit, primarily used for loading and unloading vehicles and containers.
Injunction and damages awarded
The court, under case ID UPC_CFI_575/2025, granted an injunction against the defendants, ordered them to provide information from May 13, 2024 onward, and declared them liable for damages. Honeywell received €75,000 in provisional damages, with penalties of up to €100,000 per product or per day for any violations of the injunction. The court also awarded Honeywell €175,000 in costs, based on an agreement between the parties.
The defendants’ counterclaim for revocation, which challenged the patent’s novelty and inventive step, was rejected by the court under case ID UPC-CFI-0001135/2025. The panel, led by presiding judge Peter Tochtermann, dismissed both grounds for revocation.
Background of the dispute
The case stems from a 2019 manufacturing agreement between Honeywell subsidiary Transnorm and Solvest Participatie V. In February 2022, this was replaced by a license agreement between Honeywell International and Solvest Participatie VII, covering the patent and the Sovex trademark. Honeywell terminated the license in March 2024, citing missing sales reports and unpaid royalties, with termination effective on May 13, 2024.
Honeywell pursued the license issue before The Hague District Court, where an oral hearing took place in June 2026, while simultaneously filing the infringement action in 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.
Defendants’ arguments dismissed
The defendants argued that they still had Honeywell’s consent to use the patent, either under the 2022 licence or under an alleged perpetual 2024 licence agreement. However, the court found their defense lacking substantiation, noting that the defendants largely referred to submissions in parallel Dutch proceedings without providing underlying exhibits or responding to Honeywell’s arguments. The panel, including judge-rapporteur Marjolein Visser, legally qualified judge Dirk Böttcher, and technically qualified judge Giorgio Checcacci, held that such references did not meet the requirements of Rule 24 RoP.
Related Post: YMTC wins round in Micron tech dispute
The court also rejected the defendants’ request to stay the UPC proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP, prioritizing the advanced stage of the UPC proceedings and the need for expeditious resolution over the defendants’ interest in awaiting the Dutch litigation outcome.
Liability assessment
The panel differentiated between the seven defendants when assessing liability. VeyorEx, formerly Sovex Systems, was found to have directly infringed the patent by offering the Bendy Boom through its website, the Sovex website, and a brochure targeting UPC contracting member states where the patent is in force.
Hemtech, the Bosnian manufacturer, was also found to be actively involved in the threatened placement of the product on the market. Solvest Participatie VII, as the former licensee and sole shareholder of VeyorEx, was held liable for failing to instruct VeyorEx to cease infringing activities after the license termination.
The panel attributed the infringing acts to the statutory directors Solvink and De Kleine Beuk, applying principles from the Belkin vs Philips case. However, claims against Solvest Participatie V and VI were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of their own infringing acts.
Honeywell was represented by an Amsterdam-based team from Simmons & Simmons, led by Oscar Lamme. Florian Laus, a Munich-based counsel and patent attorney, advised on technological aspects, and IP associate Max Timmerman also contributed to the case.
The Solvest defendants were represented by Utrecht-based boutique Ventoux, with partner Dick van Engelen leading the case. He collaborated with patent attorney Jacques van Breda from the firm Los & Stigter.
