ARTICLE
10 June 2025

Court Of Appeal, May 30, 2025, Orders, UPC_CoA_845/2024, UPC_CoA_50/2025

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.
The Court apportions costs based on the degree of success, considering equity and the reasonableness of the parties' positions
Germany Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

1. Key takeaways

Appeals and cross-appeals are broadly admissible, but the Court will not worsen the position of the appealing party (reformatio in peius) (Art. 73(2) UPCA, R. 220.1, R. 226(b) RoP).

The Court apportions costs based on the degree of success, considering equity and the reasonableness of the parties' positions.

Orders to communicate information must specify a reasonable time period for compliance (Art. 67(1) UPCA, R. 118.8 RoP).

If the final order does not set a time period, the claimant must specify one when notifying the defendant of enforcement. A time period that is set too short triggers the commencement of a reasonable period, to be established by the Court.

Obligation to provide information also includes manufacturer prices paid by the infringer (Art. 67(1)(b) UPCA)

The defendant must provide information on prices paid by the defendant for infringing products, as the purpose of Art. 67(1) UPCA is to enable the patent proprietor to calculate its damages.

Format of information disclosure is at the defendant's discretion unless a) specified by the Court or b) it constitutes harassment (Art. 67(1) UPCA)

If the order does not specify the format, the defendant may choose paper or electronic form unless this constitutes harassment. The burden of proof for harassement lies with the claimant. However, the defendant must substantiate any claim that a particular format is necessary due to technical limitations.

The burden of proof for compliance lies with the defendant (Art. 82(4) UPCA)

The defendant must provide detailed evidence if claiming that compliance was not possible or reasonable within the set period.

Penalty payments serve both coercive and punitive functions (Art. 82(4) UPCA, R. 354.3, R. 354.4 RoP)

Penalty payments may be imposed even if the defendant belatedly complies. The penalty punishes non-compliance itself, not just to compel future compliance.

2. Division

Court of Appeal, Panel 2

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_50/2025

UPC_CoA_845/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal and cross-appeal against an order relating to penalty payments

5. Parties

Appellants/Cross-Respondents/Defendants:

Belkin GmbH
Belkin International Inc.
Belkin Limited

Respondent/Cross-Appellant/Claimant:

Koninklijke Philips N.V.Place parties

6. Patent(s)

PEP 2 867 997

7. Jurisdictions

UPC (Local Division Munich, Court of Appeal)

8. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 118.8 RoP, R. 220.1 RoP, R. 220.2 RoP, R. 226(b) RoP, R. 354.3 RoP, R. 354.4 RoP
Art. 67(1) UPCA, Art. 73(2) UPCA, Art. 82(4) UPCA, Art. 69(1) UPCA, Art. 13(1)(a) Directive 2004/48/EC, Art. 68(3)(a) UPCA

To view the full article please click here.

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