AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals v Krahn Chemie Benelux (CFI, UPC_CFI_2028/2025, 4 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order delivered on 30 April 2026 and reasoned in writing on 4 May 2026, in joined proceedings UPC_CFI_2028/2025 and UPC_CFI_2031/2025, the single judge of The Hague Local Division dismisses Krahn Chemie Benelux’s request for review (Rule 197.3 RoP) of the order to preserve evidence and for inspection issued without hearing on 23 February 2026 in favour of AdvanSix (EP 3 286 270). The Dutch technical report will be released to AdvanSix against security of EUR 50,000. The decision restates the requirements of ex parte proceedings: plausible infringement, a risk of loss assessed on probability, and the applicant’s duty of candour.

Facts and procedure

AdvanSix filed its application on 18 December 2025 against Krahn and two Italian companies. The order of 23 February 2026, which notably allowed samples of 2-PO to be taken, was executed on 17 March 2026 at Krahn’s Dutch premises. The Dutch technical report, prepared on 2 April 2026, was made available to the defendants on 23 April. Krahn requested a review on 16 April 2026 and, while stating it had no confidentiality concerns, asked for release of the report to be suspended. The hearing took place by video conference on 30 April 2026 (Rule 197.4 RoP).

The applicable law

Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192 to 199 RoP allow measures to preserve evidence and inspection, if necessary without hearing the respondent, where the applicant has made infringement plausible with reasonably available evidence. The respondent may request a review (Rule 197.3 RoP), and the Court may make the measures subject to security (Rule 196.6 RoP). The applicant must disclose any material fact that might influence the decision (Rule 192.3 RoP).

Question

Should the order issued without hearing be revoked on account of omissions or misstatements by the applicant, the absence of any risk of loss of evidence or the availability of less intrusive means, and on what terms may the report be released?

Decision

The request is admissible but affects only Krahn, the Italian defendants not having sought review. The single judge is competent (paragraphs 14 to 16). Infringement must be plausible, mere speculation being insufficient, and the applicant owes a duty to disclose material facts, since proceedings without a hearing raise due process issues (paragraphs 17 to 24). The alleged omissions are disputed, not public or irrelevant (paragraph 25), and the patent’s limitation to at least 98 wt% 2-PO had been disclosed (paragraph 28).

The risk of loss is assessed on probability, not certainty. The retention duty under the REACH Regulation does not exclude it, and even temporary disappearance justifies ex parte proceedings (paragraphs 26 and 27). Evidence post-dating the order is disregarded (paragraphs 29 to 31). A test purchase, difficult and impossible without raising suspicion in a niche B2B market, is no alternative (paragraph 36). Security is set at EUR 50,000, AdvanSix having argued for none or EUR 10,000 and Krahn for EUR 100,000 (paragraphs 38 and 39). The file is split between the Dutch and the Italian seizures (paragraph 40).

Key points for practice

• A review affects only the respondent that requested it.
• Evidence gathered after the order is not used to assess whether it was properly made.
• Release of the expert report may be made subject to security set at the review stage.
• Practical point: an ex parte application should set out known adverse facts from the start (data sheets, distribution agreements), since that is where a review will focus.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 60(1) and (5) and 62(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 194, 196, 197, 198 and 199

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 3(2) and 7

Case law cited

Valinea Energie v Tiru, Court of Appeal, 15 July 2025, Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2025, 10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Ecovacs v Roborock, Court of Appeal, 16 March 2026, Bhagat v Oerlikon, Court of Appeal, 9 December 2025

Related decisions

• AdvanSix v Krahn Chemie Benelux, 23 February 2026, order to preserve evidence under review.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.