UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 76/2026

May 15, 2026·EP2791402: ULTRA-HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLYETHYLENE MULTIFILAMENT YARN

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Tjibbe Douma (Bird & Bird LLP); Laurens Buijtelaar (Bird & Bird LLP); Philippa van Henge (Bird & Bird LLP); Andreas Obermeier (Bird & Bird LLP)
Respondents
Reps: Michael Rüberg (Boehmert & Boehmert); Lars Oliver Eggersdorfer (Boehmert & Boehmert)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Language
English
First decided
May 26, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-26
    Procedural onlyProceduralApplication 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.

    Legal issues: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
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-05-26Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-26Not public
Statement of the Grounds of Appeal2026-05-26Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-26Not public
Order2026-05-26Public
Receipt2026-05-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-20Not public
Submission Respondent2026-05-20Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-19Not public
Order2026-05-19Public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-05-18Not public
Receipt2026-05-18Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-18Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-18Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-18Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-05-18Not public
Receipt2026-05-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-15Not public
Fee2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-05-15Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 223 RoP; Art. 74(1) UPCA; principle of effective judicial protection
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

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