Key takeaways
Irreversible foreign regulatory consequences can justify suspensive effect
The defendants argued two-fold circumstances: (i) complying with the production order may violate Chinese export control regulations, while (ii) non-compliance with the production order would trigger penalties. The Court accepted, on a prima facie basis, these consequences and extended the time limit to comply with the production order.
The Court rejected the claimant’s argument that the defendants should have proactively initiated export authorization procedures in anticipation of an adverse ruling, holding that a party’s decision to await the judicial outcome was not unreasonable given the costs involved.
Right to be heard does not extend to facts arising after the application was filed
The defendants argued that the judge-rapporteur overlooked the claimant’s later admission of having already sourced and tested the relevant fabric samples. The Court held that the judge-rapporteur properly assessed the case on the facts existing at the time the application for evidence production was filed.
The judge-rapporteur’s power to define production modalities does not constitute an ultra petita ruling
The defendants argued the judge-rapporteur ruled ultra petita by ordering delivery of samples to the Netherlands without a specific request to that effect. The Court held that specifying conditions, form, and time period is a mandatory procedural obligation, regardless of the applicant’s specific proposals.
Division
CoA, LD The Hague (first instance)
UPC number
UPC_CoA_76/2026
Type of proceedings
infringement action
Parties
Claimant: Avient Protective Materials B.V., Netherlands
Defendant: Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd., China; Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber ProductsCo., Ltd., China
Patents
EP 2 791 402
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 223 RoP, Rule 190 RoP
