Belkin v Koninklijke Philips (CoA, 30 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 30 May 2025, the Court of Appeal rules on Belkin’s appeal and Koninklijke Philips’ cross-appeal against the Munich Local Division’s order of 17 December 2024, which had imposed a penalty payment of EUR 46,000 on Belkin for late compliance with the order to provide information made on 13 September 2024. It reduces the penalty to EUR 42,000 and orders repayment of EUR 4,000. The order matters for enforcement practice: a penalty payment also has a punitive function and sanctions late compliance even once it has occurred, the prices paid to the manufacturer fall within the duty of information under Art. 67(1)(b) UPCA, and the debtor may in principle choose between paper and electronic form.

Facts and procedure

By decision of 13 September 2024, the Munich Local Division found infringement of EP 2 867 997 and ordered Belkin, subject to penalty payments, to provide information on its suppliers, distribution channels, quantities and prices. Philips gave notice of enforcement on 20 September 2024, setting a deadline of 7 October. Belkin’s application for suspensive effect was rejected on 29 October 2024. On 12 November 2024 Belkin delivered sixteen boxes of printed invoices and a paper table without the manufacturer’s prices, which it only supplied on 24 December 2024 (paragraphs 1 to 24).

The applicable law

The Court of Appeal applies Art. 67(1) UPCA and Rule 191 on the duty of information, read in light of Art. 13(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48, together with Arts. 74 and 82(4) UPCA and Rule 354 on enforcement and penalty payments (paragraphs 36 to 59).

Question

Can a penalty payment sanction late compliance that has already taken place, from when did the duty of information run, does it cover prices paid to the manufacturer, and must the information be given in electronic form?

Decision

Both appeals are admissible (paragraphs 25 to 29). The decision was enforceable from the Rule 118.8 notice, since a mere application for suspensive effect suspends nothing (paragraphs 36 to 41). The order, which was sufficiently clear, covers prices paid to the manufacturer, consistent with its purpose of calculating damages, without any separate application (paragraphs 42 to 49). Since a penalty payment is also punitive, it may sanction delay even after compliance. Fault is required, but the debtor must prove that compliance was impossible or unreasonable (paragraphs 51 to 59). The reasonable period expired on 6 November 2024, not 30 October, hence the EUR 4,000 reduction (paragraphs 60 to 75). A mistake of law about manufacturer prices does not excuse a represented party (paragraph 70). As the UPCA prescribes no form, delivery on paper was acceptable (paragraphs 79 to 83). First instance costs are split 40% Philips and 60% Belkin, appeal costs 35% and 65%, with the value in dispute set at EUR 150,000.

Key points for practice

• A request for information should state the period for compliance. Where the decision sets none, the claimant sets it in its enforcement notice (paragraph 40).
• Late compliance remains subject to a penalty payment, and the debtor bears the burden of proving compliance (paragraphs 51 and 57).
• Prices paid by the infringer to its manufacturer are owed under Art. 67(1)(b) UPCA (paragraphs 42 to 49).
• Practical point: a patentee wanting usable electronic data must expressly request that form in its claims on the merits (paragraphs 79 to 87).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 44, 67, 69, 73, 74 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 4, 118.8, 131, 141, 191, 220 and 354

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 13(1)(a)

Case law cited

Koninklijke Philips v Belkin, Munich Local Division, 13 September 2024.

Related decisions

• Koninklijke Philips v Belkin, 13 September 2024, decision on the merits being enforced.
• Koninklijke Philips v Belkin, 29 October 2024, refusal of suspensive effect.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.