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.
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.
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.