UPC_CFI_335/2025; UPC_CFI_336/2025 – Hurom v NUC/Warmcook
- Court
- Local Division Mannheim
- Date
- Outcome
- Withdrawn
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Withdrawal of cost proceedings Facts 1. The claimant won in first instance in the Local Division Mannheim with a decision of 11 March 2025. 2. The claimant lodged an application for a cost decision one month after the aforementioned decision. 3. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Mannheim decision, the claimant withdrew its application for a cost decision on 10 April 2026. The Court 1. R. 265 RoP is applicable by analogy with respect to the withdrawal of a request in cost proceedings. 2. The Court allowed the withdrawal. The defendant had no interest, as the winner of cost proceedings under normal circumstances is not entitled to costs. Comment 1. This is another good example of how complicated and inefficient the way costs are calculated and awarded is. After having won in first instance the Court should have been able to order the defendant to pay a lump sum of the costs. I propose an amount equal to 70% of the cost ceiling, subject to special circumstances justifying a lower or higher percentage, which can be argued by the parties. 2. The defendant would have paid these costs without any cost proceedings, and the Court of Appeal would have ruled that they must pay back the received amount and would have ordered the claimant to pay the cost of the first instance (lump sum) and appeal (lump sum). 3. Let’s hope that the Rules of Procedure will be revised accordingly.
Full Decision Text
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC CFI 335/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 5 May 2026 concerning EP 2 028 981 (Application for a cost decision with regard to UPC CFI 162/2024; withdrawal) APPLICANT Hurom Co., Ltd. - 80-60, Golden root-ro - 62184 - Juchon-myeon, Gimhae-si, Gyeongsangnam-do - KR Represented by Klaus Haft 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 decision was issued by the legally qualified judge Böttcher acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English 2 SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Application for a cost decision; withdrawal 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 Application for a cost decision by brief of 10 April 2026. Defendant did not submit a comment on the withdrawal. REASONS FOR THE ORDER The withdrawal of the Application for a cost decision, to which R. 265 RoP is to be applied by analogy (cf. CoA, decision of 27 April 2026, UPC CFI 60/2026, Niche Biomedical v Onward Medical), 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 application for a cost decision. There is no need for a decision on the costs attributable to the cost proceedings at hand. A party, even if successful in the context of proceedings for a cost decision under R. 150 RoP, will have to carry its own costs attributable to the cost proceedings, except for the court fee of an appeal (cf. CoA, decision of 27 April 2026, UPC CFI 60/2026, Niche Biomedical v Onward Medica; decision of 6 June 2025, UPC CoA 618/2025, Hanshow v VusionGroup, para. 54). An exceptional case in which a party may be ordered to bear any unnecessary costs it has caused the court or another party (Art. 69(3) UPCA) is not given in the case at hand. Claimant was prompted to file an Application for a cost decision within one month after the decision dated 11 March 2025 was delivered. ORDER: 1. The withdrawal of the Application for a cost decision is permitted. 2. The proceedings are declared closed. 3. This order shall be entered in the register. Issued in Mannheim on 5 May 2026 NAME AND SIGNATURE Böttcher Legally qualified judge
Key Holdings
- Withdrawal of cost proceedings is permissible by analogy with Rule 265 RoP.
- The Court allowed the withdrawal of the cost application, noting the defendant had no interest as the winner of cost proceedings is typically not entitled to costs.
- The current system for calculating and awarding costs is criticized as complicated and inefficient.
- A proposal is made for courts to award a lump sum for costs, such as 70% of the cost ceiling, subject to party arguments.
- The analysis suggests a need for revision of the Rules of Procedure regarding cost awards.
Tags
- Costs
- Withdrawal
- Rules of Procedure
- Cost Proceedings