ARTICLE
17 June 2025

Court Of Appeal, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CoA_434/2025

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
An appeal shall only be granted suspensive effect if the circumstances of the case justify an exception. This may be the case for orders of communication of information according to Art.
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Requirements for suspensive effect of an appeal

An appeal shall only be granted suspensive effect if the circumstances of the case justify an exception. This may be the case for orders of communication of information according to Art. 67 UPCA. However, the risk of irreparable harm, if the suspensive effect is not granted, has to be substantiated.

The provisions of Art. 67 UPCA mirror those of Article 8 on the right of information of the Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (hereafter the "Enforcement Directive") which, among other measures, is designed to ensure a high level of protection in all Member States of the European Union, and allows precise information to be obtained on the origin of the infringing goods or services, the distribution channels and the identity of any third parties involved in the infringement (Enforcement Directive, Preamble para. 21).

It follows that the communication of information belongs to measures that, when so ordered, are necessary to ensure a high level of protection. It is thus only under exceptional circumstances that the enforcement of such measures may be suspended under R. 223 RoP.

Even if disclosure of the information pending the appeal would to some extent undermine the purpose of the appeal against this part of the impugned decision, in the present case the applicant has not shown that the appeal becomes devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that its interests in maintaining the confidentiality of the information pending the appeal outweigh the respondent's interests in immediately obtaining information on the origin and distribution of applicant's products in order, inter alia, to prevent further infringements.

2. Division

Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_434/2025

4. Type of proceedings

procedural application for suspensive effect, R. 223 RoP

5. Parties

NUC Electronics Co., Ltd

vs

Hurom Co., Ltd.

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 028 981

7. Jurisdictions

Place jurisdictions

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 223 RoP, Art. 74 (1) UPCA, Art. 67 UPCA

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More