Short Summary
This case concerns an Application for a cost decision filed by Hurom Co., Ltd. following the Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismiss the infringement action regarding EP 2 028 981. The Claimant withdrew its Application for a cost decision by brief of 10 April 2026, and the Respondents raised no objections. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered that no separate cost decision was needed f
Detailed Summary
1
Local Division Mannheim
UPC_CFI_336/2025
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_159/2024; withdrawal)
APPLICANT
Hurom Co., Ltd.
- 80-60, Golden root-ro - 62184 - Juchon-myeon,
Gimhae-si, Gyeongsangnam-do - KR
Represented by Klaus Haft
RESPONDENTS
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 decision was issued by the legally qualified judge Böttcher acting as judge-rapporteur
LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English
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.
Defendants 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. Defendants have raised no objections. No interests on the part of
Defendants 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.
3
Issued in Mannheim on 5 May 2026
NAME AND SIGNATURE
Böttcher
Legally qualified judge
Dirk
Andreas
Böttcher
Digital
unterschrieben von
Dirk Andreas
Böttcher
Datum: 2026.05.05
20:27:53 +02'00'
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hurom Co., Ltd. vs NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Viatris SantévsMerz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France
Viatris Santé appealed a procedural order from the Paris Local Division that had disregarded certain late-filed exhibits from its rejoinder in provisional measures proceedings brought by Merz. However, the Paris Local Division subsequently issued a final order rejecting Merz's application for provisional measures entirely, rendering Viatris's procedural appeal devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal disposed of the appeal under R. 360 RoP, noting that Viatris could still seek admission of the exhibits in Merz's separate appeal against the final order.
Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H.vsRespondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_146/2024) involving Sanofi entities as claimants and STADA entities as defendants regarding European patent EP 2 493 466. Medac had uploaded a privileged and confidential letter from Sanofi as 'Exhibit 2' in unredacted form, prompting objections from Sanofi. The court permitted the withdrawal of the application and the exhibit, ordered Medac to bear the costs of removing the exhibit from the CMS, imposed a recurring penalty for any future use of the document, and issued a warning to Medac's representative for negligent breach of the Code of Conduct.
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
1. If the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State (here: Germany), the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK part of the patent in suit. This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. The terms used in a
Szymon SpyravsRespondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/04/2025 regarding R.320 – re-establishment APPLICANT - – PL (Defendant in the main action, hereinafter: “Defendant”) Represented by Michal
expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbHvsSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a cost assessment procedure following the revocation of European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. had sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for patent infringement, but the Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked the patent on October 10, 2024, and dismissed the infringement action. The defendants subsequently filed a cost assessment application on December 12, 2024, seeking recovery of €111,000 in total costs, comprising €100,000 for proceedings costs and €11,000 for court costs of the revocation counterclaim.
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.