AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals v Krahn Chemie Benelux (CFI, UPC_CFI_2028/2025, 23 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 23 February 2026, given in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_2028/2025 and UPC_CFI_2031/2025, The Hague Local Division, sitting as a single judge, granted without hearing the defendants measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises at three distributors, Krahn Chemie Benelux in the Netherlands and Reschem Italia and Vicris in Italy, on the basis of AdvanSix’s EP 3 286 270 concerning the anti-skinning agent 2-pentanone oxime. The order provides for sampling, keyword-limited digital copies and access to the results in two phases. It offers a detailed template for cross-border measures aimed at indirect infringement.

Facts and procedure

AdvanSix makes 2-pentanone oxime (2-PO), sold as EZ-BLOX. It terminated its former distributor Dura Europe on 2 December 2024 (paragraphs 3 to 13). The defendants allegedly offer « Duroxime » products in the Benelux and Italy, which AdvanSix says amounts to indirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA (paragraphs 16 to 19). The patent, granted on 24 January 2024, was maintained by the EPO Opposition Division on 9 September 2025, with an appeal pending. The application, filed on 18 December 2025, was amended in January 2026 and supplemented on 3 February 2026 (paragraphs 1, 2 and 22).

The applicable law

The measures fall under Rules 192 and 199 and Art. 60 UPCA. Jurisdiction rests on Art. 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 and Arts 31 to 33 UPCA, one defendant being established in the Netherlands (paragraph 24). Rule 197 allows the measures to be ordered without hearing the defendant.

Question

Are the conditions for an ex parte saisie at distributors established in two Contracting Member States met, and how should the applicant’s access to the evidence gathered be organised?

Decision

The application was admissible and the conditions of Rules 192 and 199 were met, AdvanSix intending to sue on the merits for indirect infringement before the same division (paragraph 23). The demonstrable risk of evidence disappearing and the irreparable harm a hearing would cause justified proceeding ex parte (paragraph 25). There was no reason to doubt validity and indirect infringement was plausible, on a summary review hearing only the applicant (paragraphs 26 and 27). Sampling was justified, a test purchase being difficult and liable to raise suspicion. The other evidence was concretely described and likely held by the defendants (paragraphs 28 to 30).

The operative part allows photographs, up to three samples of about 500 g per defendant and digital copies limited by keywords to documents from 24 January 2024 onwards. It appoints bailiffs, technical and IT experts and a laboratory in Belgium, sets a penalty of EUR 5,000 per hour capped at EUR 100,000 for refusal to cooperate, and excludes the applicant from attending. Access to the results proceeds in two phases, the second only with the division’s leave (paragraphs 32 to 34). The measures lapse if the merits action is not brought within 31 calendar days or 20 working days, costs are reserved.

Key points for practice

• The difficulty of a test purchase and the risk of alerting distributors justify sampling (paragraph 28).
• The defendants are protected by the option to seek confidentiality for the reports, following the Court of Appeal’s approach (paragraph 36).
• Two-phase access makes disclosure of the evidence depend on a legitimate interest revealed by the analysis (paragraphs 32 to 34).
• Practical point: precise keywords and a start date confine digital copying and make ex parte measures easier to obtain.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 26, 31, 32(1)(a) and (c), 33 and 60(6) and (8)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 194, 197, 198.1 and 199

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 23 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_177/2024)

Related decisions

• AdvanSix v Krahn Chemie Benelux, 4 May 2026, later order of The Hague Local Division in the same proceedings.

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.