UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 2031/2025

—·EP3286270: COATING COMPOSITION INCLUDING ALKYL OXIMES

Verfahrensdetails
Status
—
Verfahrensart
Beweissicherung
Kategorie
Beweis & Inspektion
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Arjen Reijns; Mark Marfé
Beklagte
Vertreter: Philippe Campolini; Louis Bidaine; Auke-Frank Tadema
Division
—
Richter
Technology
Organic Chemistry
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
4. Mai 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-04
    Nur prozessualBeweisApplication for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192

    The Court dismissed Krahn's requests to revoke the ex parte preservation of evidence order originally granted on 23 February 2026. The Technical Report NL (relating to the Dutch seizure at Krahn's premises) was ordered to be made accessible to the applicant AdvanSix subject to AdvanSix depositing security of EUR 50,000. Administrative steps were also ordered to separate the Dutch and Italian seizure proceedings in the CMS.

    Rechtsfragen:Review of ex parte preservation of evidence order under R.197.3 RoPApplicant's duty to disclose material facts in ex parte applications under R.192.3 RoPStandard of proof for plausibility of infringement in preservation of evidence proceedingsJustification for ex parte procedure and risk of evidence destructionProportionality of preservation of evidence measuresSecurity for costs under R.196.3(b) and R.196.6 RoP as condition for access to technical reportScope of review limited to the reviewing defendant (Krahn) only
Dokumente
  • 20260504%20Review%20Order.pdf2026-05-04EN
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Risk of evidence disappearance or temporary unavailability was sufficiently plausible to justify ex parte order, even in light of REACH retention obligations

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R.194.2(c) and R.197.1 RoP; Art.60(5) UPCA

  • AdvanSix's assumption that Duroxime and Duroxime P were the same product was plausible given the MSDS for Duroxime showed a 2-PO range of 90-100%, which includes values within the patent's scope

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art.60(1) UPCA; R.192.3 RoP

  • A test purchase was not a reasonably available less prejudicial alternative given the niche, business-to-business, person-to-person sales market

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art.3(2) Enforcement Directive; proportionality principle

  • Security of EUR 50,000 is appropriate as a condition for AdvanSix to access the Technical Report NL

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.196.3(b) and R.196.6 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Main request to revoke the order in its entirety, including as against Italian defendants 2 and 3

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.197.3 RoP — review filed only by Krahn cannot affect order vis-à-vis other defendants

  • AdvanSix misrepresented the scope of patent protection by not making clear the patent was limited to a coating composition with at least 98 wt% 2-PO anti-skinning component

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.192.3 RoP

  • AdvanSix should have known from Univar's website that Duroxime and Duroxime P are different products, rendering the plausibility of infringement unfounded

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.192.3 RoP

  • Facts concerning the distribution agreement between AdvanSix and Dura were misrepresented and influenced the Court's decision

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.192.3 RoP

  • No security is needed or security should be limited to EUR 10,000

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R.196.3(b) and R.196.6 RoP

  • Security of EUR 100,000 as condition for AdvanSix to access evidence

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.196.3(b) and R.196.6 RoP