Short Summary
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 028 981. The court ordered the separation of proceedings with respect to the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, to be dealt with in separate proceedings, while the main proceedings concerning UPC member states could proceed to a decision on the merits.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Local Division Mannheim on 11 March 2025 in case UPC_CFI_162/2024, a patent infringement action brought by Hurom Co., Ltd. (a Korean company) against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (also a Korean company) concerning European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. The panel consisted of presiding judge Tochtermann, judge-rapporteur Böttcher, and judge Perrotti, with proceedings conducted in English.
The core procedural issue arose because the European Court of Justice decision in case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) — concerning a fundamental question of European law about international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation (Art. 71a, Art. 71b (1) (2)) as applied by the UPC towards defendants domiciled outside the EU — had not been delivered by the end of the oral hearing. The ECJ delivered its decision on 25 February 2025, after the oral hearing but before the scheduled date for delivery of the decision in the present case.
The court reasoned that it would be inadmissible, or at least questionable in light of the parties' right to be heard, to base its decision on the ECJ's ruling without giving the parties an opportunity to comment on its implications. However, the court also found it inappropriate to hold a second oral hearing for the entire case, since the panel could deliver a decision on the merits regarding the national parts of the patent-in-suit for which it had jurisdiction regardless of the ECJ decision's outcome.
Applying Rules 302.1, 303.2, and 340.2 of the Rules of Procedure accordingly, the court determined that where infringement proceedings are ready for decision with respect to single national parts only, such decision should not be withheld on a regular basis, as this would delay enforcement of the claimant's potential patent rights compared to a situation where national courts of UPCA member states would adjudicate separately. The court found that such separation is not contrary to Art. 33(2) UPCA, which concentrates proceedings before a single division but does not mandate connection of proceedings.
The parties had been informed by order of 23 January 2025 that the panel might separate proceedings regarding non-UPC countries (Poland, Spain, possibly Turkey, and the United Kingdom) if no ECJ decision was delivered before the oral hearing. The parties did not oppose this approach.
The final order separated the claimant's requests based on the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, to be dealt with in one separate proceeding.
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 is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
ICPillar LLCvsARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco (UK) Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an application under R.262A RoP for confidentiality in appeal proceedings related to a security for costs order. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request to keep certain parts of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal confidential, and ordered that the unrestricted version be made available to ARM without any duty of confidentiality. The Court also gave ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response but rejected ICPillar's request to amend its own Statement of appeal, finding no equality of arms issue.
Scandit AGvsHand Held Products, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by Scandit AG under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file a reply to Hand Held Products' response to the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, finding that Scandit had not sufficiently justified why a reply was necessary, and held that further prior art could not be introduced at the appeal stage without proper justification.
Dehns (Application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.vsAmgen, Inc.)
Dehns, a firm of UPC representatives, applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence lodged in revocation and counterclaim for revocation proceedings between Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Amgen, Inc. concerning European patent EP 3 666 797. The Court of First Instance granted access to the written pleadings and evidence, applying the general principles established by the Court of Appeal in Ocado/Autostore, but rejected the request for other documents that did not qualify as written pleadings or evidence.
GXD-Bio CorporationvsMyriad International GmbH and Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns a request by the defendants for the claimant to provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 346 403. The defendants argued that the claimant, a Korean IP monetization company incorporated in 2024 with limited assets and a low credit rating, posed a risk that any cost order would be unrecoverable. The claimant did not contest the request and agreed to provide security of EUR 112,000, and the court ordered the security to be provided by deposit or bank guarantee by 15 January 2025.
air up group GmbHvsGuangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. regarding EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention as the competent Chinese authority received the documents but failed to process them for more than six months. The Local Division Munich held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order and granting the defendant 14 days to file an objection.
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.