UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 2031/2025

—·EP3286270: COATING COMPOSITION INCLUDING ALKYL OXIMES

Case details
Status
—
Action
Evidence preservation
Category
Evidence & Inspection
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Arjen Reijns; Mark Marfé
Respondents
Reps: Philippe Campolini; Louis Bidaine; Auke-Frank Tadema
Division
—
Judges
Technology
Organic Chemistry
Language
—
First decided
May 4, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-04
    Procedural onlyEvidenceApplication 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.

    Legal issues: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
Documents
  • 20260504%20Review%20Order.pdf2026-05-04EN
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: R.196.3(b) and R.196.6 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: R.192.3 RoP

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

    RespondentLegal basis: R.192.3 RoP

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R.196.3(b) and R.196.6 RoP

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

    RespondentLegal basis: R.196.3(b) and R.196.6 RoP