UPC_CFI_162/2024 – Hurom v NUC
- Court
- Local Division Mannheim
- Date
- Outcome
- Withdrawn
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Withdrawal of request for penalty Facts 1. Hurom had applied for penalties to be imposed on the defendant for allegedly violating the infringement decision of the Local Division. 2. The Court of Appeal overturned the Local Division’s decision. 3. Hurom applies to withdraw of the penalty proceedings. The Court allowed the withdrawal and closed the case. Comment 1. The logical action taken by the claimant and the corresponding decision of the Local Division. 2. This demonstrates that a decision being immediately enforceable can have serious consequences. An interesting question arises: assume that the Local Division has imposed penalties and they have been paid to the Court. Thereafter, the Court of Appeal reverses the decision of the Local Division. Does the Court have to return the penalties? I would think not because the penalty is the result of not obeying a court decision, and this is a standalone obligation.
Full Decision Text
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC CFI 162/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 5 May 2026 concerning EP 2 028 981 (withdrawal, R. 354.4 RoP) CLAIMANT/APPLICANT Hurom Co., Ltd. - 80-60, Golden root-ro - 62184 - Juchon-myeon, Gimhae-si, Gyeongsangnam-do - KR Represented by Klaus Haft DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT NUC Electronics Co., Ltd - 280, Nowon-ro - 41548 - Buk-gu, Daegu - KR Represented by Martin Momtschilow PATENT AT ISSUE: European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 PANEL/DEVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Mannheim DECIDING JUDGES: This order is issued by the legally qualified judge Böttcher as judge-rapporteur. 2 LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Patent infringement action – enforcement proceedings, withdrawal of a penalty request BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FACTS After the Court of Appeal had set aside the decision of LD Mannheim dated 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action, Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on Defendant by brief of 10 April 2026. Defendant did not submit a comment on the withdrawal. REASONS FOR THE ORDER If R. 265 RoP is to be applied, by analogy, to a withdrawal of a request for the imposition of penalty payments, the withdrawal at hand is hereby permitted. Defendant has raised no objections. No interests on the part of Defendant are apparent that would preclude a withdrawal in favour of a decision on the merits of Claimant’s penalty request. In consequence, Claimant must bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings. ORDER: 1. The withdrawal of the request for the imposition of penalty payments on Defendant is per- mitted. 2. The proceedings are declared closed. 3. This order shall be entered in the register. 4. Claimant must bear the costs of enforcement proceedings. Issued in Mannheim on 5 May 2026 NAME AND SIGNATURE Böttcher Legally qualified judge
Key Holdings
- A request for penalties for non-compliance with an infringement decision can be withdrawn if the underlying decision is overturned by the Court of Appeal.
- The Local Division will allow the withdrawal of penalty proceedings under such circumstances and close the case.
- Decisions being immediately enforceable can lead to serious consequences.
- The obligation to pay a penalty for not obeying a court decision is considered a standalone obligation, even if the underlying decision is later reversed.
Tags
- Withdrawal
- Penalties
- Enforcement
- Procedural Law
- Court of Appeal