Avient Protective Materials v Xingi Technology (CFI, UPC_CFI_478/2025, 2 November 2026)

Date	2 November 2026
Court	CFI
Division	The Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_478/2025, UPC_CFI_585/2026
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_478/2025
Parties	Avient Protective Materials B.V. v. Xingi Technology Co., Ltd; Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd.
Language	English

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 4 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order registered on 2 November 2026 (UPC_CFI_478/2025 and UPC_CFI_585/2026), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division records the decisions taken at the interim conference of 26 October 2026 in Avient’s action against Xingi concerning EP 2 791 402. The value of the action and of the counterclaim is set at EUR 1.5 million each, giving a ceiling of recoverable costs of EUR 112,000. Several late exhibits are admitted or excluded, Xingi must identify by 2 November its most promising validity attacks, five being regarded as a maximum, and Avient must then list its auxiliary requests, six being suggested, linking each to a specific attack.

The hearing of 7 December 2026 will start at 9:30, with 90 minutes of pleading per side and a 30-minute rebuttal. Slides are allowed if they contain nothing new, as are Dutch-style pleading notes without legal status. The Division invites the defendants to make their counterclaim conditional on a finding of infringement and urges the parties to agree on costs. The order is mistakenly dated 30 November 2026.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 105.5, 190, 262.2 and 263

Related decisions

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 4 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: Oral procedure and hearing (UPC), Auxiliary requests, Costs of proceedings (UPC)

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: English from the language of proceedings
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Parties not recorded.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Après la conférence intermédiaire, le juge-rapporteur de la division locale de La Haye fixe la valeur de l’action et de la demande reconventionnelle à 1,5 million d’euros chacune, tranche les objections de tardiveté et organise la concentration des débats sur la validité avant l’audience du 7 décembre 2026.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 791 402 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Avient Protective Materials v Xingi (CFI, 11 May 2026) cited in this record
Avient Protective Materials v Xinji (CFI, 24 October 2025) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 791 402`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 5 other decision(s): Xingi v Avient Protective Materials (CoA, 27 August 2026) · Xingi v Avient Protective Materials (CoA, 14 July 2026) · Xingi v Avient Protective Materials (CoA, 26 May 2026) · Avient Protective Materials v Xingi (CFI, 11 May 2026) · Avient Protective Materials v Xinji (CFI, 24 October 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.