ARTICLE
31 August 2026

Court Of Appeal, August 27, 2026, Order To Produce Evidence, UPC_CoA_76/2026

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The Court of Appeal addresses procedural questions regarding orders to produce evidence in patent litigation involving high-performance fiber products. The case examines the application of Article 59 UPCA and Rules 190 and 222.2 of the Rules of Procedure in the context of evidence production orders within the Unified Patent Court territory.
Germany Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Technology, Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

R. 190 RoP does not permit fishing expeditions

The purpose of R. 190 RoP is to enable access to specified evidence that is not readily accessible to the party bearing the burden of proof. An order under R. 190 RoP requires reasonably available evidence supporting the plausibility of the claim and is subject to the cumulative requirements of specificity, necessity and proportionality (cf. Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_57/2026, Polytechnik v Dall). Such measures are of particular importance because relevant technical or commercial data often reside exclusively within the sphere of the opposing party or third parties.

This approach reflects the rationale underlying Art. 6 of Directive 2004/48/EC (Enforcement-Directive), which provides for judicial measures intended to ensure effective access to evidence, subject to appropriate safeguards.

The assessment whether the production of specific evidence is justified falls within the discretion of the Court of First Instance

The Court of Appeal will intervene only where the assessment of the Court of First Instance is affected by an error of law, a manifest error of assessment, or a failure properly to apply the limits of R. 190 RoP (cf. Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_57/2026, Polytechnik v Dall).

Neither Art. 59 UPCA nor R. 190 RoP require an application to produce evidence to be lodged together with the statement of claim

Whether such an application has been made in a timely manner must be assessed having regard to the state of the proceedings and to the procedural developments that have occurred at the time the request is filed.

2. Division

Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_76/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Order to produce evidence

5. Parties

Appellant: Xingi Technology Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd.

Respondent: Avient Protective Materials B.V.

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 791 402

7. Jurisdictions

UPC territory

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190, 222.2 RoP

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More