- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartBeweissicherungKategorieBeweis & Inspektion
- Parteien
- Division
- The Hague LD
- Richter
- Technologie
- ChemistryBasic materials chemistry
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 4. Mai 2026
- EPA-Einspruch
- Akzo Nobel Coatings International B.V.Zulässig2024-10-22
- Troy Chemical Company B.V.Zurückgenommen2024-10-24
- Page, White & Farrer LimitedZulässig2024-10-24
| Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 124 |
| The Hague LD | Gesperrt |
| Richter Margot Kokke | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC (3 Verfahren)·Krahn Chemie Benelux BV (1 Verfahren)
1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: The Hague LD·2025
- 2026-05-04Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192Öffentlich
Zusammenfassung: 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 anzeigen (7)
- Review of ex parte preservation of evidence order under R.197.3 RoP
- Applicant's duty to disclose material facts in ex parte applications under R.192.3 RoP
- Standard of proof for plausibility of infringement in preservation of evidence proceedings
- Justification for ex parte procedure and risk of evidence destruction
- Proportionality of preservation of evidence measures
- Security for costs under R.196.3(b) and R.196.6 RoP as condition for access to technical report
- Scope of review limited to the reviewing defendant (Krahn) only
- 20260504%20Review%20Order.pdf2026-05-04EN
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) UPCAAdvanSix'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 RoPA 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 principleSecurity 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
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 defendantsAdvanSix 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 RoPAdvanSix 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 RoPFacts concerning the distribution agreement between AdvanSix and Dura were misrepresented and influenced the Court's decision
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.192.3 RoPNo security is needed or security should be limited to EUR 10,000
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R.196.3(b) and R.196.6 RoPSecurity of EUR 100,000 as condition for AdvanSix to access evidence
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.196.3(b) and R.196.6 RoP