UPC CoA 76/2026

Summary: Court of Appeal order dismissing the appeal and declaring the counter-appeal inadmissible, in an appeal against an order of The Hague Local Division of 11 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_478/2025 and 585/2026) requiring production of evidence under R.190 RoP. The Court held that R.190 RoP requires reasonably available evidence supporting the plausibility of the claim and is subject to specificity, necessity and proportionality, does not permit fishing expeditions, and that the first-instance assessment of necessity and proportionality is reviewed only for error of law, manifest error, or failure to apply the limits of R.190 RoP. [operative 'ORDER', page 14]

Summary: The Court of Appeal judge-rapporteur extended the suspensive effect of the earlier 26 May 2026 order (which had suspended enforcement of a first-instance production order requiring delivery of UD Fabric samples and video translations) until service of the Court's final decision on the appeal. No substantive ruling on the underlying appeal or the production order was made.

Summary: 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.