UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 478/2025

Jun 13, 2025·EP2791402 · ULTRA-HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLYETHYLENE MULTIFILAMENT YARN

Follow
Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
The Hague LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Textile and paper machines
Language
English
First decided
May 11, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
The Hague LDLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Stefan SchillingLockedLocked
Judge Koen CallewaertLockedLocked

At the UPC: Avient Protective Materials B.V. (4 cases)·Xingi Technology Co., Ltd (3 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC CoA 76/2026·UPC CFI 585/2026

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

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

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: The Hague LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-05-11
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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)
Documents
Show all 367 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-10-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-10-15Not public
Document2026-10-15Not public
Communication2026-10-09Not public
Receipt2026-10-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-10-06Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-10-06Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-10-06Not public
Document Defendant2026-10-06Not public
Receipt2026-09-28Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R.190 RoP, Art. 59(1) UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

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

  • Introduction Video is not necessary to establish technical infringement

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