UPC CoA 76/2026
May 15, 2026·EP2791402 · ULTRA-HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLYETHYLENE MULTIFILAMENT YARN
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Claimants
- Xingi Technology Co., LtdOperating co.
- Jiangsu Xingi High Performance Fiber Products Co., LtdOperating co.
Representatives- Michael Rüberg-Boehmert & Boehmert
- Lars Oliver Eggersdorfer-Boehmert & Boehmert
- Karl-Heinz Metten-Boehmert & Boehmert
Respondents- Avient Protective Materials B.V.Operating co.
Representatives- Tjibbe Douma-Bird & Bird LLP
- Laurens Buijtelaar-Bird & Bird LLP
- Philippa van Henge-Bird & Bird LLP
- Andreas Obermeier-Bird & Bird LLP
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringTextile and paper machines
- Language
- English
- First decided
- May 26, 2026
- Last decision
- Aug 27, 2026
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Klaus Grabinski | Locked |
| Judge Paolo Catallozzi | Locked |
| Judge Emmanuel Gougé | Locked |
At the UPC: Xingi Technology Co., Ltd (3 cases)·Avient Protective Materials B.V. (4 cases)
This dispute contains 2 other proceedings
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2026
- 2026-08-27AppealPublic
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]
Show the legal issues (4)
- requirements for an order to produce evidence under R.190 RoP
- specificity, necessity and proportionality; no fishing expeditions
- standard of appellate review of the first-instance discretion
- legitimate interest in additional evidence
- 2026-07-14AppealPublic
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.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Extension of suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP
- Chinese export-control requirements as justification for compliance delay
- Practical effectiveness of pending appeal (preservation of status quo)
- 2026-05-26Application RoP 223Public
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.
Show the legal issues (7)
- Application for suspensive effect of evidence production order (R. 223 RoP)
- Appeal against evidence production order under R. 190 RoP
- Chinese export control regulations as obstacle to compliance
- Right to be heard (Art. 6 ECHR; Art. 47 EU Charter)
- Ne ultra petita principle in production order
- Balancing of parties' interests for suspensive effect
- Irreversibility of enforcement consequences
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case closed | 2026-08-27 | Not public |
| Publication of order | 2026-08-27 | Not public |
| Final Order | 2026-08-27 | Public |
| Decision | 2026-08-27 | Not public |
| Final Order | 2026-08-27 | Not public |
| Deliberation opened | 2026-07-21 | Not public |
| Oral procedure closed | 2026-07-21 | Not public |
| Hearing recording reference document | 2026-07-21 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-07-17 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-17 | Not public |
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
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 CharterViolation 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 ECHRManifest 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 RoPManifest 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