Opens in a new tab

Xingi v Avient Protective Materials (CoA, 14 July 2026)

Date14 July 2026
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_76/2026
Registry referenceUPC-COA-0000076/2026
PartiesXingi Technology Co., Ltd, Jiangsu Xingi High Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd v. Avient Protective Materials B.V.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 14 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_76/2026, EP 2 791 402), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal extended until service of the appeal decision the suspensive effect granted on 26 May 2026 to Xingi Technology and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji against the Hague Local Division’s order of 11 May 2026, which required them under Rule 190 RoP to produce samples of UD fabric and English versions of an introduction video. As the Chinese export authorisation sought by the appellants is still pending, the status quo is maintained. The order shows how a foreign-law constraint can extend the suspension of a production order.

Question

Can suspensive effect granted because of a foreign export authorisation procedure be extended where that procedure is not completed by the deadline set?

Decision

The application is admissible, since it relies on circumstances arising after the order of 26 May 2026 and seeks to modify the compliance deadline (paragraph 7). That order had accepted, prima facie, that the Chinese export-control regime applied and that immediate enforcement risked rendering the appeal largely ineffective, while requiring the appellants to act with due diligence, any unjustified delay being attributed to them (paragraphs 8 and 9). The authorisation procedure is still pending, so that basis remains, the Court making no finding on why it has taken so long (paragraph 10). With the hearing scheduled and a decision expected soon, suspensive effect is extended until service of that decision, and the alternative requests need not be decided (paragraphs 11 and 12).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 190 and 223

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
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

  • UPC_CoA_76/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 14 July 2026 Xingi v Avient Protective Materials (CoA, 14 July 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_76/2026
  2. 27 August 2026 Xingi v Avient Protective Materials (CoA, 27 August 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_76/2026

    La cour d'appel confirme l'ordonnance de production d'échantillons et d'une vidéo rendue au titre de la règle 190 et déclare irrecevable l'appel incident conditionnel d'Avient.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Appeal
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
L'effet suspensif accordé le 26 mai 2026 est prolongé jusqu'à la signification de l'arrêt d'appel, l'autorisation d'exportation chinoise étant toujours pendante.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 791 402Mentioned 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, 26 May 2026) · Avient Protective Materials v Xingi (CFI, 11 May 2026) · Avient Protective Materials v Xinji (CFI, 24 October 2025) · Avient Protective Materials v Xingi Technology (CFI, UPC_CFI_478/2025,
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.