Hurom Co., Ltd. v. NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK

This procedural order was issued by Judge Böttcher of the Local Division Mannheim on 6 August 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. The case is an infringement action (UPC_CFI_336/2025) with related cost proceedings (UPC_CFI_159/2024), in which Hurom Co., Ltd. (the Claimant/Applicant) sought a cost decision under R. 150 et seqq. RoP against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK (the Defendants/Respondents).

The Applicant filed an application under R. 262A RoP seeking to classify the breakdown of hours worked by its attorneys (contained in its brief of 28 April 2025) as confidential information. The Applicant argued that this information relates to the privileged client-attorney relationship, is neither generally known nor available to third parties, and that restricting access to the Respondents' attorneys was justified because they would be best placed to assess the breakdown. The Applicant requested that the information be treated as strictly confidential, not used or disclosed outside the proceedings, and that access be limited to the Respondents' lawyers only (alternatively, to a limited number of persons including the lawyers).

The Respondents opposed the request, arguing there was no legitimate interest in confidentiality vis-à-vis the Respondents themselves, and that the information concerned business information of the Applicant's representatives rather than business secrets of the Applicant.

The court granted the application in part. First, the court held that the breakdown of hours worked between lawyers is confidential information belonging to both the lawyers and their client, subject to attorney-client privilege, and that the distribution of hours could allow conclusions about working methods and the importance attached to the case. The court rejected the view that confidential information of UPC representatives is excluded from protection under R. 262A RoP, following the approach of LD Düsseldorf and CD Paris Seat rather than CD Milan Seat. The UPC representatives qualify as third parties within the meaning of Art. 58 UPCA.

However, the court rejected the requested access restrictions. It held that restricting access to lawyers alone is not permitted under R. 262A.6 RoP without the consent of the party concerned, because the right to be heard encompasses access to the facts submitted by the other party. Without knowledge of the underlying facts, a party cannot understand and review the assessment made by its lawyer. The court also rejected the alternative request to restrict access to specific named natural persons, finding that the Applicant had only vaguely stated its interest in confidentiality and had not shown that an agreement restricting access to designated persons existed. The court noted that the Respondents were already obliged not to disclose the information to persons within their organization who did not need it for the cost proceedings.

The final order classified the attorneys' hours worked (Para. 11 of the brief) as confidential pursuant to R. 262A RoP, required the Respondents, their legal representatives, and their teams to treat the information as confidential and not use or disclose it outside the proceedings, with the obligation continuing after termination of the proceedings. The court also provided that a culpable breach could result in a periodic penalty payment. The order superseded the preliminary order dated 29 April 2025.