Avient Protective Materials v Xingi (CFI, 11 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 11 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_478/2025 and UPC_CFI_585/2026), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division partly grants Avient Protective Materials’ application for production of evidence (Rule 190 RoP) against the Xingi Group, in an infringement action on EP 2 791 402 (UHMWPE yarn) met by a counterclaim for revocation. The Xingi Group must produce 30 kg of two UD fabric variants and the English version of a video removed from its website, under a penalty, and the other requests fail. The order shows a close review of necessity and proportionality.

Question

To what extent must the opposing party produce samples, internal test data, a promotional video and internal communications under Rule 190 RoP?

Decision

The judge applies four cumulative conditions (paragraph 12). Infringement is sufficiently plausible for claims 13 to 15 and the patent enjoys a presumption of validity, absent a clear-cut case of invalidity (paragraphs 13 and 14). Only two of the six fabric variants are ordered, in a quantity sufficient for duplicate testing, as market purchases would not yield enough material (paragraphs 18 to 21). Internal test data, generated outside the patent’s conditions, and internal communications are refused (paragraphs 22 and 26). The video is relevant to prove acts within UPC territory (paragraphs 23 to 25). A penalty of EUR 1,000 per day of delay applies, and non-compliance will be weighed on the merits (Rule 190.7 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a production request should be sized to the intended test, the Division cut down the variants sought and recommended testing by an independent body, with the opposing party invited (paragraphs 28 to 30).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 41(3), 42, 59(1) and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 190, 220.1, 262, 262A and 351.1(c)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 3 and 6

Case law cited

Winnow Solutions v Orbisk, The Hague Local Division, 14 October 2024, OPPO v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024

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.