UPC_CoA_76/2026

Decisions and documents (3)

• 2026-08-27procedural

  Appellant:

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

  Respondent:

  Avient Protective Materials B.V.

  1. The purpose of R. 190 RoP is to ensure effective judicial protection by enabling 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. R. 190 RoP does not permit fishing expeditions. 2. Under R. 190 RoP, the assessment of whether the production of specific evidence is justified by the requirements of necessity and proportionality falls, in principle, within the margin of discretion of the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeal will interfere with that assessment only in the event of an error of law, a manifest error of assessment, or a failure properly to apply the limits inherent in R. 190 RoP. 3. The fact that a party considers the evidence already available sufficient to support its allegations does not preclude it from seeking access to additional evidence under R. 190 RoP if that party has a legitimate interest in the additional evidence (as in case when the adverse party argues that the fact to be proven can only be established by means of additional evidence). R. 190 RoP requires that the applicant has already presented reasonably available evidence supporting the plausibility of its claim. 4. Neither Art. 59 UPCA nor R. 190 RoP requires an application for the production of 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. 5. New factual allegations and supporting evidence relied upon for the first time on appeal may be disregarded where no justification is provided for their late introduction as required by R. 222.2 RoP. 6. A conditional appeal is inadmissible where it makes consideration of the appeal dependent upon a prior determination by the Court of Appeal whether evidence not yet produced and tested will ultimately be sufficient for the purposes of the claim in the main proceedings. Whether such evidence is sufficient to establish the claim is a matter for the court deciding the merits of the case and therefore lies outside the scope of the appeal. Reference no: 7. Upon service of the decision or of the order determining the appeal, a suspensive effect granted pending determination of that appeal ceases to operate. Any subsequent issues relating to the enforcement of the order of the Court of First Instance are to be assessed by the judge- rapporteur of that Court in light of the circumstances then existing.

  Judge: Klaus Grabinski • Panel: Emmanuel Gougé, Klaus Grabinski, Appeal Paolo Catallozzi🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-07-14procedural

  Appellants:

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

  Respondent:

  Avient Protective Materials B.V.

  Appeal. Document: order - extension suspensive effect _UPC_COA_76-2026.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183787

  • Panel: Emmanuel Gougé, Paolo Catallozzi🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-05-26procedural

  Appellant:

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

  Respondent:

  Avient Protective Materials B.V.

  partially_granted

  Application Rop 223. Document: order - suspensive effect_UPC_COA_76-2026_Signed.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183348

  Judge: Klaus Grabinski • Panel: Emmanuel Gougé, Klaus Grabinski, Appeal Paolo Catallozzi🔒 Unlock Official PDF