Short Summary
This order concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 between Hurom Co., Ltd. as Claimant and NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. as Defendant. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant by brief of 10 April 2026. The Defendant raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Detailed Summary
This matter concerns enforcement proceedings arising from a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim involving European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. The Claimant is Hurom Co., Ltd., a Korean company based in Gimhae-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, represented by Klaus Haft. The Defendant is NUC Electronics Co., Ltd., a Korean company based in Buk-gu, Daegu, represented by Martin Momtschilow. The proceedings were conducted in English.
The substantive infringement action had previously been decided by the Local Division Mannheim on 11 March 2025. That decision was subsequently set aside by the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the infringement action. Following this dismissal, the Claimant filed a brief on 10 April 2026 withdrawing its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant. The Defendant did not submit any comment or objection to the withdrawal. The central procedural question before the court was whether the withdrawal of the penalty request should be permitted.
& Analysis
The legally qualified judge Böttcher, acting as judge-rapporteur, applied Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure by analogy to the withdrawal of a request for the imposition of penalty payments. The court found that the withdrawal was permissible because the Defendant had raised no objections and no interests on the part of the Defendant were apparent that would preclude a withdrawal in favour of a decision on the merits of the Claimant's penalty request. Consequently, the court determined that the Claimant must bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Final Order & Ruling
The court issued the following order on 5 May 2026 in Mannheim: (1) the withdrawal of the request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant is permitted; (2) the proceedings are declared closed; (3) the order shall be entered in the register; and (4) the Claimant must bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings. The order was signed by the legally qualified judge Dirk Andreas Böttcher.
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
Belkin GmbH, ****, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin Limited, **** and ****vsKoninklijke Philips N.V.
This is an appeal decision of the Court of Appeal concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. The court addressed key legal questions including the autonomous interpretation of 'offering' under Article 25(a) of the European Patent Convention Agreement, the liability of managing directors for patent infringement committed by their companies, and the requirements for corrective measures such as recall, removal from distribution channels, and destruction. The decision establishes that offering must be understood in an economic sense as an 'invitatio ad offerendum' and does not require a price indication or actual delivery capability.
BekaertvsSiltronic
This case concerns an inspection and evidence preservation proceeding brought by Topsoe A/S, holder of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The dispute centers on the scope of disclosure of the expert's detailed description to the applicant, particularly regarding the protection of confidential information. The Düsseldorf Local Division applied its three-step test from the prior Bekaert v. Siltronic decision, ruling on the relevance of confidential information and the redaction obligations.
Dyson Technology LimitedvsDREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against multiple Dreame-related entities and a UK-based company (Cellcom Ltd.) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a hand-held hair care appliance. Dyson asserted that the Defendants' sales of the 'Dreame Dazzle Hair Styler' infringed claims 1 and 11 of the patent, directly or by equivalence. The Local Division Hamburg addressed issues of international jurisdiction under the Brussels I recast regulation, the role of an Authorized Representative in Northern Ireland, and the principles governing split cost decisions.
BIOPSAFE APS, Lasse Henze and Stefan Borch Bilfeldt, AWA Denmark A/S, StravsKALTEK S.R.L., via Liguria n. 29, 35020 - Saonara (PD), Italy
In this legal proceeding before Milan Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-30) under reference UPC_AEFD96D0F6, BIOPSAFE APS, Lasse Henze and Stefan Borch Bilfeldt, AWA Denmark A/S, Stra appeared in dispute with KALTEK S.R.L., via Liguria n. 29, 35020 - Saonara (PD), Italy concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Italy srl
This order was issued by the Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Paris Seat) in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, filed a subsequent application to amend the patent after a previous amendment application had been rejected and after the closing of the written procedure. The Court recognized its discretionary authority to admit such a subsequent amendment request, provided that the claimant's right to defence was preserved through the possibility of filing an additional defence if the amendment was admitted.
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.