Short Summary
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed NUC Electronics' application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 028 981. The Court held that NUC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, particularly given that the information disclosure order under Art. 67 UPCA is a measure necessary to ensure a high level of IP protection and is subject to use restrictions already imposed by the first instance.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by NUC Electronics Co., Ltd ('NUC') against an appeal of a decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dated 11 March 2025, in proceedings brought by Hurom Co., Ltd. ('HUROM') for infringement of European patent EP 2 028 981.
In the impugned decision, the Mannheim LD found that NUC had infringed claim 1 of the patent at issue and ordered NUC, inter alia, to destroy and recall the infringing products (Part A.II) and to provide HUROM with detailed information regarding the origin and distribution channels of the infringing products, quantities produced/manufactured/delivered/received/ordered, prices obtained, and the identity of all third parties involved in the distribution (Part B.II).
On 9 May 2025, NUC filed an appeal against the decision. On 15 May 2025, NUC applied for suspensive effect under Art. 74 UPCA and R. 223 RoP, arguing that the information it was required to provide contained highly confidential business secrets (including customer identities and distribution structures), that disclosure would cause irreparable damage, and that HUROM, as a direct competitor, could misuse the information for strategic market positioning.
HUROM opposed the application, arguing the absence of exceptional circumstances and established confidential business secrets, and referring to its submissions in parallel R. 262A RoP proceedings before the Mannheim LD concerning the protection of confidential information.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application. It reasoned that under Art. 74(1) UPCA, an appeal does not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise upon a motivated request, and that under R. 223.2 RoP, the applicant must set out the reasons and supporting facts, evidence, and arguments. The Court reiterated that suspensive effect may only be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as where the appealed decision is manifestly erroneous or where the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspension.
The Court emphasized that Art. 67 UPCA, which empowers the Court to order an infringer to provide information on the origin and distribution channels of infringing goods, mirrors Art. 8 of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC). Such information measures are designed to ensure a high level of IP protection across the EU, and their enforcement may be suspended only under exceptional circumstances.
The Court found that NUC's broad and unsubstantiated references to a risk of irreparable harm and misuse of information did not meet the threshold of exceptional circumstances. Even assuming disclosure would to some extent undermine the purpose of the appeal, NUC had not shown that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect, nor that its interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighed HUROM's interest in promptly obtaining information to prevent further infringements.
The Court further noted that the Mannheim LD had already addressed the confidentiality issue in its order of 2 June 2025 (ORD_24143/2025), finding no specific risk of misuse justifying R. 262A RoP protection, and that the impugned decision itself (para. 125) restricted the use of the disclosed information to identifying third infringers, calculating damages, and verifying information obtained from NUC. The Court also reminded that any unauthorized use could constitute a breach of business secrecy under the Trade Secrets Directive (EU) 2016/943.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed NUC's application for suspensive effect in its entirety.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Hurom Co., Ltd. vs NUC Electronics Co., Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.