UPC CFI 159/2024 – Hurom Co., Ltd. v NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK

Court
Local Division Mannheim
Date
Outcome
Procedural order for separation of proceedings concerning specific national parts of the patent-in-suit.
Sector
Other
Decision Type
Procedural Order

Expert Commentary

Full Decision Text

1 Local Division Mannheim UPC CFI 159/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 11/03/2025 concerning EP 2 028 981 CLAIMANT Hurom Co., Ltd. - 80-60, Golden root-ro - 62184 - Juchon-myeon, Gimhae-si, Gyeongsangnam-do - KR Represented by Klaus Haft DEFENDANTS 1) NUC Electronics Europe GmbH - Schwalbacher Strasse 76 - 65760 - Eschborn - DE Represented by Christian Kau 2) WARMCOOK - 73 boulevard Gay Lussac - 13014 - Marseille - FR Represented by Christian Kau PATENT AT ISSUE: European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 PANEL/DEVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Mannheim 2 DECIDING JUDGES: This order is issued by the presiding judge Tochtermann, the legally qualified judge Böttcher as judge-rapporteur and the legally qualified judge Perrotti. LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Patent infringement action – separation of proceedings REASONS FOR THE ORDER: The order is based on R. 302.1, R. 303.2, R. 340.2 RoP applied accordingly. The decision of the European Court of Justice in re C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) had not been delivered until the end of the oral hearing but only thereafter on 25 February 2025. With the decision pending, no guidance was available concerning a fundamental question of European Law concerning the international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation to be applied by the UPC pursuant Art. 71a, Art. 71b (1) Brussels Ia Reg. Although the ECJ delivered its decision before the date foreseen for the delivery of the decision in the proceedings at hand, it would be inadmissible, at least questionable in the light of parties’ right to be heard if the panel would now base its decision on the ECJ’s decision without the parties having had the opportunity to comment on this decision and its implications. However, it seems to be likewise inappropriate to hold a second oral hearing for the whole case although the panel could deliver a decision on the merits with regard to national parts of the patent-in-suit for which the panel has jurisdiction regardless of the outcome of said ECJ decision. The panel believes that, in any situation where the infringement proceedings is ready for decision with regard to single national parts only, such decision should not be withheld on a regular basis, if this would result in delaying in part the enforcement of claimant’s potential patent rights. Otherwise, the enforcement of these national parts would be delayed in comparison to a situation where national courts of the UPCA member states would have adjudicated on the respective national parts separately although there is no indication apparent that the UPCA intends to provide less protection. Therefore, in the panel’s opinion, such situation calls for R. 302.1, R. 303.2, R. 340.2 RoP to be applied accordingly in order to separate the proceedings with regard to national parts of traditional European bundle patents which are not ready for decision yet. Such separation of proceedings is not counter to Art. 33 (2) UPCA. This provision concentrates proceedings concerning the same parties and the same patent before a single division. However, it does not call for such proceedings to be connected. In particular in cases, where a part of the proceedings is ready for decision only, a panel, when exercising its discretion whether to connect such proceedings or not, has to take into account that the enforcement of claimant’s rights would be delayed in part. The parties were informed by order of 23 January 2025 that, with regard to non-UPC countries (Poland, Spain, (possibly) Turkey, United Kingdom), the panel may deal with the questions concerned by the pending ECJ decision in re C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) in separate proceedings after the separation of cases in the event that no decision of the ECJ should be delivered until the oral hearing has taken place. The parties did not oppose. ORDER: Claimant’s requests based on the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning Poland, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom are separated and will be dealt with in one separate proceedings. 3 Issued in Mannheim on 11 March 2025 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Presiding judge Tochtermann Legally qualified judge Böttcher Legally qualified judge Perrotti

Key Holdings

  • The court cannot base its decision on a newly delivered ECJ ruling (C-339/22) without allowing parties to comment, due to the fundamental right to be heard.
  • Separation of proceedings is appropriate when parts of a case are ready for decision, even if other parts are not, to avoid delaying the enforcement of potential national patent rights.
  • Such separation, applying R. 302.1, R. 303.2, R. 340.2 RoP, is consistent with Art. 33(2) UPCA, which allows for discretion in connecting proceedings.
  • The claimant's requests based on the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom are separated and will be dealt with in one separate proceeding.

Tags

  • Brussels Regulation
  • CJEU Referral
  • Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
  • Right to be Heard
  • Rules of Procedure
  • Separation of Proceedings
  • Unified Patent Court

Related Rules

Related Cases