Short Summary
This order concerns the withdrawal of a request for the imposition of penalty payments in enforcement proceedings before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its penalty payment requests. The court permitted the withdrawal and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Detailed Summary
This case (UPC_CFI_159/2024) was a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 028 981, brought by Claimant Hurom Co., Ltd. against Defendants NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. The proceedings had progressed to the enforcement stage, involving requests for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendants.
The underlying infringement action had been decided by the Local Division Mannheim on 11 March 2025, but that decision was subsequently set aside by the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the infringement action. Following this dismissal, by brief dated 10 April 2026, the Claimant withdrew its requests for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendants. The Defendants did not submit any comment on the withdrawal.
The court, presided over by legally qualified judge Böttcher as judge-rapporteur, addressed whether the withdrawal should be permitted. Reasoning that Rule 265 RoP should be applied by analogy to a withdrawal of a request for the imposition of penalty payments, the court found that the withdrawal was permissible. The Defendants raised no objections, and no interests on the part of the Defendants were apparent that would preclude a withdrawal in favour of a decision on the merits of the Claimant's penalty request.
As a consequence, the court ordered that: (1) the withdrawal of the requests for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendants 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 issued in Mannheim on 5 May 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hurom Co., Ltd. vs NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsMediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd requested that certain information in its complaint be classified as confidential and that all participants in the proceedings be obligated to maintain confidentiality, including after the proceedings conclude. The court granted the request, classifying the identified information as confidential and ordering that it be kept confidential by all persons involved in the proceedings.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitetvsTesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE/Tesla Germany GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Centripetal LimitedvsKeysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
The defendants (Keysight) applied to stay UPC infringement and revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 821 580 pending parallel EPO opposition proceedings, citing a preliminary EPO opinion finding added matter. The claimant (Centripetal) opposed the stay, arguing the preliminary opinion was non-binding and that UPC proceedings were well-advanced with an oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the stay request, holding that the case was ripe for a full hearing and that the UPC decision would likely be issued before the EPO's reasoned decision.
Centripetal LimitedvsPalo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited, as registered proprietor of EP 3 281 580, applied to the Local Division Mannheim for an order to preserve evidence (Saisie) under Art. 60 UPCA, alleging that Palo Alto Networks' network security solution (Next Generation Firewall, Advanced Threat Prevention, and App-ID Cloud Engine) likely infringed claims 1 and 16 of the patent. After the judge-rapporteur initially rejected the application and the Court of Appeal referred the matter back, the court granted the application in modified form, ordering inspection, evidence preservation, and an expert report subject to a security of EUR 100,000 and various confidentiality conditions.
3V Sigma S.p.AvsA.G.A. S.r.l. and ACEF Srl
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.