UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 478/2025

13. Juni 2025·EP2791402 · ULTRA-HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLYETHYLENE MULTIFILAMENT YARN

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Written Phase
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
The Hague LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Mechanical engineering
    Textile and paper machines
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
11. Mai 2026
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
The Hague LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Edger BrinkmanGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Margot KokkeGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Stefan SchillingGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Koen CallewaertGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Avient Protective Materials B.V. (4 Verfahren)·Xingi Technology Co., Ltd (3 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 2 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 76/2026·UPC CFI 585/2026

1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CFI 478/2025n/AUPC CFI 478/2025

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: The Hague LD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-11
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The judge-rapporteur partially granted Avient's R.190 RoP application for evidence production. The Xingi Group was ordered to produce at least 30 kg each of two specified UD Fabric types (J300_120H_2UD and J300_130S_4UD) and the English version(s) of an Introduction Video removed from its website. Requests for internal ballistic test data and internal communications regarding the video removal were dismissed as unnecessary or disproportionate.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (9)
    • R.190 RoP evidence production order (Art. 59(1) UPCA)
    • Prima facie case of infringement of claims 13-15 (ballistic panel performance)
    • Necessity and proportionality of evidence production requests
    • Specification and control of requested evidence
    • Availability of UD Fabrics through ordinary commercial channels
    • Production of internal ballistic test data
    • Production of removed marketing video as evidence of infringing acts in UPCA territory
    • Penalty for non-compliance (EUR 1,000 per day, R.190.4(b) RoP)
    • Adverse inference for non-compliance (R.190.7 RoP)
Dokumente
Alle 367 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-10-15Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-10-15Nicht öffentlich
Document2026-10-15Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-10-09Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-10-06Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-10-06Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Defendant2026-10-06Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Defendant2026-10-06Nicht öffentlich
Document Defendant2026-10-06Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-09-28Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Prima facie case of infringement of claims 13-15 exists based on evidence of infringement of claims 2-4 and 8-10; ballistic testing of UD Panels is necessary and relevant to establish infringement of claims 13-15

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R.190 RoP, Art. 59(1) UPCA

  • UD Fabrics are not available in sufficient quantities through ordinary commercial channels (B2B supply chain only), justifying evidence production order

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R.190(1) RoP, Art. 6 Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC

  • 30 kg of each UD Fabric type is necessary for in duplo ballistic testing according to patent methods; quantity not reduced

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R.190 RoP proportionality requirement

  • Introduction Video is plausibly necessary to establish infringing acts directed at UPCA territory; video was removed from Xingi's website during proceedings

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R.190 RoP, Art. 59(1) UPCA
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Request for six UD Fabric variants is necessary and proportional; infringement must be established across the full product range

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R.190 RoP proportionality — court limited order to two alternative fabric types

  • Internal ballistic test reports, V50 test results and Eabs calculations should be produced as they are necessary for deciding the case

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R.190 RoP necessity — internal data not generated under patent-specific test conditions and therefore not necessary

  • Internal communications regarding decision to remove/replace the Introduction Video should be produced

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R.190 RoP — dismissed as unnecessary and disproportionate at this stage

  • Application should be dismissed in its entirety; R.190 threshold not met; infringement case not sufficiently substantiated; no basis for general discovery

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.190 RoP — partially rejected; court found prima facie infringement case and ordered partial evidence production

  • Avient was able to acquire UD Fabrics on the market, so evidence production is not necessary

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.190 RoP necessity — dismissed; small amounts obtainable on market insufficient for required ballistic testing

  • Introduction Video is not necessary to establish technical infringement

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.190 RoP — dismissed as irrelevant; video sought to prove infringing acts in UPCA territory, not technical infringement