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
myStromer AGvsRevolt Zycling AG
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-06-22) under reference UPC-001750, myStromer AG appeared in dispute with Revolt Zycling AG concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United StatesvsQualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States
The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions arising from appeals filed by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against decisions of the Munich Local Division in three infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669, and EP 1 875 683. The central issues were whether NST's appeals against the dismissal of its Rule 190 evidence production applications were timely, and whether a new Rule 190 application filed for the first time during appeal proceedings was admissible. The Court held that the 15-day appeal period under Article 73(2)(a) UPCA and Rule 224.1(b) RoP applied to orders on Rule 190 applications, that NST's appeals were inadmissible as they were filed outside the mandatory time limit, and that the refiled Rule 190 application was inadmissible as it was substantially the same as the one already dismissed at first instance without any new facts justifying refiling.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal against an order relating to penalty payments under the Rules of Procedure. The judgment sets out headnotes explaining the framework for penalty orders under Rule 354.3 RoP, including when penalty orders may be issued, how penalty amounts should be determined, what specifications the order must contain, and the respective responsibilities of claimants and defendants regarding suggested amounts and time periods for compliance.
26 February 2026vsRespondent
The President of the Court of Appeal rejected an Applicant's petition for review of the Registrar's decision denying confirmation of his registration on the list of entitled representatives under Art. 48(3) UPC Agreement. The Applicant had sought confirmation of an alleged prior registration rather than a new registration, but failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that he had ever filed an application in the Case Management System (CMS). The Court held that the petition was admissible but unfounded, as the Applicant could not demonstrate that any prior application had been submitted through the mandatory CMS filing system.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, BEGA-Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co KG, BEGA BBK Sp. z o.o. sp. K and NEG Novex Großhandelsgesellschaft für Elektro- und Haustechnik GmbHvsWashtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) dated 11 September 2025, relating to European Patent EP 3 522 755. The appellants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, citing professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. The Court of Appeal granted a limited extension of three working days, extending the deadline from 26 September 2025 to 1 October 2025.
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.