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.
Division
Court of Appeal, Panel 2
UPC number
UPC_CoA_50/2025
UPC_CoA_845/2024
Type of proceedings
Appeal and cross-appeal against an order relating to penalty payments
Parties
Appellants/Cross-Respondents/Defendants:
Belkin GmbH
Belkin International Inc.
Belkin Limited
Respondent/Cross-Appellant/Claimant:
Koninklijke Philips N.V.Place parties
Patent(s)
PEP 2 867 997
Jurisdictions
UPC (Local Division Munich, Court of Appeal)
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
