Xingi v Avient Protective Materials (CoA, 26 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_76/2026), the Court of Appeal partially granted the application for suspensive effect by Xingi Technology and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products, who are appealing an order of the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division of 11 May 2026 requiring them, under Rule 190 RoP, to produce fabric samples and a video within two weeks in their dispute with Avient Protective Materials (EP 2 791 402). The time limit for compliance was extended to 15 July 2026.

Question

Should enforcement of an order to produce evidence be suspended where the appellants argue that complying within the time set would expose them to a breach of Chinese export control rules?

Decision

Suspensive effect is granted only in exceptional circumstances, particularly against a procedural order, notably where enforcement would render the appeal devoid of purpose or largely ineffective (paragraphs 13 to 17). The complaints of breach of the right to be heard, manifest error on market availability and ultra petita were rejected, since Rule 190 RoP requires the court to specify the conditions, form and time for production (paragraphs 20 to 25 and 33 to 36). However, the court accepted prima facie the existence of the Chinese export control regime and its incompatibility with the two-week time limit: compliance would expose the appellants to irreversible sanctions (paragraphs 26 to 30). They were not required to begin export formalities in advance (paragraphs 31 and 32). Rather than suspend the order, the court extended the time limit to 15 July 2026, any unjustified delay being attributable to the appellants (paragraphs 37 to 39).

Key points for practice

• Foreign regulatory constraints shown prima facie may lead the Court of Appeal to adjust the time for compliance rather than suspend the order.
• Practical point: a party relying on a regulatory obstacle to compliance must document it and cannot then delay the necessary steps without justification.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 73(2), 74(1) and 74(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 190, 220.1(c) and 223

Other provisions

European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 6, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 6 November 2023, Progress Maschinen v AWM, Court of Appeal, 2 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_177/2024), ICPillar v ARM, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024 (UPC_CoA_301/2024), Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 18 January 2024, Windhager v Bellissa, Court of Appeal, 2 December 2025, ALPINA v CUP&CINO, Court of Appeal, 24 March 2026, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024 (UPC_CoA_549/2024), Chint v Jingao, Court of Appeal, 20 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_430/2025), RiVOLUTiON v Cilag, Court of Appeal, 15 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_737/2025)

Related decisions

• Avient Protective Materials v Xingi, 11 May 2026, order to produce evidence under appeal.

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.