ARTICLE
1 June 2026

CoA, May 26, 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 defendants argued two-fold circumstances: (i) complying with the production order may violate Chinese export control regulations, while (ii) non-compliance with the production order would trigger penalties. The Court accepted, on a prima facie basis, these consequences and extended the time limit to comply with the production order.
Germany Intellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Privacy, Transport, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Irreversible foreign regulatory consequences can justify suspensive effect

The defendants argued two-fold circumstances: (i) complying with the production order may violate Chinese export control regulations, while (ii) non-compliance with the production order would trigger penalties. The Court accepted, on a prima facie basis, these consequences and extended the time limit to comply with the production order.

The Court rejected the claimant’s argument that the defendants should have proactively initiated export authorization procedures in anticipation of an adverse ruling, holding that a party’s decision to await the judicial outcome was not unreasonable given the costs involved.

Right to be heard does not extend to facts arising after the application was filed

The defendants argued that the judge-rapporteur overlooked the claimant’s later admission of having already sourced and tested the relevant fabric samples. The Court held that the judge-rapporteur properly assessed the case on the facts existing at the time the application for evidence production was filed.

The judge-rapporteur’s power to define production modalities does not constitute an ultra petita ruling

The defendants argued the judge-rapporteur ruled ultra petita by ordering delivery of samples to the Netherlands without a specific request to that effect. The Court held that specifying conditions, form, and time period is a mandatory procedural obligation, regardless of the applicant’s specific proposals.

2. Division

CoA, LD The Hague (first instance)

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_76/2026

4. Type of proceedings

infringement action

5. Parties

Claimant: Avient Protective Materials B.V., Netherlands

Defendant: Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd., China; Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber ProductsCo., Ltd., China

6. Patents

EP 2 791 402

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 223 RoP, Rule 190 RoP

Click here to read the full report.

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