Short Summary
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC filed infringement proceedings before the Local Division The Hague concerning European Patent EP3286270 against six defendants including Troy Chemical Company B.V. and several Azelis entities. No statement of defence or counterclaim was filed by any defendant, and the parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings. The Claimant subsequently requested withdrawal of the action with the Defendants' consent, and the Court granted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, ordered confidentiality of certain annexes, and directed reimbursement of 60% of the court fees.
Detailed Summary
On 10 April 2025, the Claimant, AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC, lodged a statement of claim with the Registry of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), initiating infringement proceedings before the UPC Local Division in The Hague against six Defendants: Troy Chemical Company B.V., Troy Chemie GmbH, Azelis Group N.V., Azelis SA, Azelis Netherlands B.V., and Azelis Benelux. An amended statement of claim was submitted on 16 April 2025, and service on the Defendants was effected between 30 April 2025 and 16 May 2025. The patent at issue was EP3286270, owned by the Claimant.
By Order of 22 May 2025, the Court set the deadline for lodging statements of defence (and any counterclaim) for 5 August 2025. Following a joint request by the parties on 1 August 2025, the Court extended this deadline to 19 August 2025. However, no statement of defence or counterclaim was subsequently filed by any of the Defendants. On 14 August 2025, the parties requested a stay of proceedings pursuant to R. 295(d) RoP, which the Court granted by order of 15 August 2025.
On 22 October 2025, the Claimant filed an application requesting withdrawal of the proceedings pursuant to R. 265 RoP. The reasons for the withdrawal were set out in Confidential Annexes 1 and 2, from which it was apparent that the Defendants consented to the withdrawal. The Claimant additionally requested (i) that access to the Confidential Annexes be restricted to the parties and the Court under R. 262.2 RoP, and (ii) reimbursement of 60% of the fixed and value-based fees, amounting to €96,600 (60% of €161,000), pursuant to R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP.
The Court granted all requests. It held that, based on the request, the confidential annexes, and the consensus of the parties, the withdrawal request should be granted. The R. 262.2 RoP request for confidentiality was also granted because the annexes pertained to confidential settlement information with no legitimate interest for third parties to access. The same confidentiality treatment was extended to the Confidential Annex submitted with the earlier request to stay. The Court found that reimbursement of 60% of the fees was appropriate given that the action effectively ended after the submission of the statement of claim. The Court also noted that a separate decision on costs pursuant to R. 265.2(c) RoP was not required.
The final decision ordered: (1) withdrawal of Case UPC_CFI_321/2025 with immediate effect; (2) closure of the proceedings under R. 265.2(a); (3) entry of the decision on the register under R. 265.2(b); (4) confidentiality of the unredacted withdrawal request, Confidential Annexes 1 and 2, and the Confidential Annex submitted with the 14 August 2025 stay request pursuant to R. 262.2 RoP; and (5) direction to the Registrar to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees (€96,600) as soon as possible.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before The Hague (NL) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC vs Troy Chemical Company B.V. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Faro Technologies, Inc.vsBlankenhorn GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court, related to main proceedings UPC_CFI_500/2025 concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought cost assessment against Blankenhorn GmbH, but the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. The court permitted the withdrawal of the cost assessment application and declared the proceedings terminated without a costs decision.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd.vsGolf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning two related proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The court granted a further extension of deadlines for the plaintiff's representative to file a reply to the infringement action and a defense to the counterclaim, based on the health-related incapacity of the responsible attorney. The deadlines were extended from December 23, 2024 to December 27, 2024, subject to further substantiation of the health impairments.
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland LimitedvsOna Patents SL
Google appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court that rejected its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2 263 098). The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the President CFI had incorrectly assessed fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA, and ordered that English be used as the language of the proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
This order concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant. The court permitted the withdrawal and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg in a patent infringement action concerning a Rule 190.1 RoP application by the Defendants (Tesla entities) seeking to compel the Plaintiff (Avago) to produce Board of Directors resolutions related to the authorization of the patent transfer and power of attorney. The Court granted the application in part, ordering production of three of the four requested documents relating to the authorization chain and the transfer of the patent from the transferor corporation, but denied the request concerning the recipient entity (Avago General IP).
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.