UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 76/2026

15. Mai 2026·EP2791402: ULTRA-HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLYETHYLENE MULTIFILAMENT YARN

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Written Phase
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Tjibbe Douma (Bird & Bird LLP); Laurens Buijtelaar (Bird & Bird LLP); Philippa van Henge (Bird & Bird LLP); Andreas Obermeier (Bird & Bird LLP)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Michael Rüberg (Boehmert & Boehmert); Lars Oliver Eggersdorfer (Boehmert & Boehmert)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
26. Mai 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-26
    Nur prozessualProzessualApplication Rop 223

    The Court of Appeal partially granted the appellants' application for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP, extending the time limit for compliance with a first-instance evidence production order (Rule 190 RoP) from the original two-week deadline to 15 July 2026. The extension was granted on the basis that immediate enforcement would risk rendering the appeal largely ineffective, given the appellants' need to obtain Chinese export authorisations for the ballistic materials ordered to be produced. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity was made.

    Rechtsfragen:Application for suspensive effect of evidence production order (R. 223 RoP)Appeal against evidence production order under R. 190 RoPChinese export control regulations as obstacle to complianceRight to be heard (Art. 6 ECHR; Art. 47 EU Charter)Ne ultra petita principle in production orderBalancing of parties' interests for suspensive effectIrreversibility of enforcement consequences
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Statement of the Grounds of Appeal2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-05-26Öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-20Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-20Nicht öffentlich
Submission Respondent2026-05-20Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-19Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-05-19Öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-05-18Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-18Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-18Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-18Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-18Nicht öffentlich
Formal Deficiency found2026-05-18Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Immediate enforcement would risk rendering the appeal largely ineffective because compliance would require exporting ballistic materials subject to Chinese export controls, with permit procedures taking 1–2 months, and non-compliance would expose appellants to criminal and administrative sanctions that are not fully reversible

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 223 RoP; Art. 74(1) UPCA; principle of effective judicial protection
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Violation of right to be heard because the judge-rapporteur did not allow the appellants to address the respondent's alleged admission in its Reply to the Statement of Defence that it had already obtained and tested J300 fabric samples

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 6 ECHR; Art. 47 EU Charter

  • Violation of right to be heard regarding the location designated for physical delivery of evidence, which was not proposed by the claimant in its application

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 190(4)(a) RoP; Art. 6 ECHR

  • Manifest error: the impugned order incorrectly treated the impossibility of procuring sufficient quantities of fabric on the open market as uncontested, whereas appellants had challenged that fact

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 190 RoP

  • Manifest error: the judge-rapporteur breached the ne ultra petita principle by ordering delivery to the Netherlands when the claimant had not specifically requested that location

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 190(4)(a) RoP; principle of party disposition