NUC v Hurom (UPC_CoA_434/2025)

• Hurom brought an infringement action against NUC before the Mannheim LD. The Mannheim LD found that NUC had infringed Hurom's patent and ordered NUC, among other things, to destroy and recall the infringing products and to inform Hurom of the extent of the infringing acts, including information on:

i. product origin;

ii. distribution channels;

iii. quantities produced, delivered, and ordered;

iv. the price obtained;

v. manufacturing quantities and times;

vi. turnover; and

vii. the identity of all third parties involved in distribution.

• NUC brought an appeal against the decision and filed an application for suspensive effect under Article 74 UPCA and Rule 223 RoP. NUC claimed that the information it was ordered to provide by the Mannheim LD contained highly confidential trade secrets, for example the identity of its customers, and disclosure would cause irreparable damage. It also said that there was a clear risk of misuse of the information as Hurom could use is for its own strategic market positioning
• The Court of Appeal dismissed NUC's application for suspensive effect. The Court of Appeal noted that the power to disclose information of the sort the Mannheim LD had ordered NUC to disclose was enshrined in Article 67 UPCA in response to a justified and proportionate request of the applicant. The communication of this sort of information was necessary to ensure a high level of protection and it was only under exceptional circumstances that the enforcement of such measures could be suspended under Rule 223 RoP.
• The court highlighted that Article 67 UPCA mirrors Article 8 of the Enforcement Directive, which allows precise information to be obtained on the origin and distribution channels (including third parties involved in the infringement) of infringing goods or services.
• The Court of Appeal found that NUC had not substantiated the risk of irreparable harm or demonstrated that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. The court emphasised that the communication of information was necessary to ensure protection and could only be suspended under exceptional circumstances, which NUC had failed to establish.
• The court concluded that NUC's interests in maintaining confidentiality did not outweigh Hurom's interests in obtaining the information to prevent further infringements. The Court of Appeal noted that there was no risk of misuse of the information because the order limited the use of the information for specific purposes, such as identifying third party infringers, calculating damages and verifying information obtained from the infringer.