Hurom Co v NUC Electronics Co (CFI, 5 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 30 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 5 May 2026 the Mannheim Local Division permits Hurom to withdraw its request for penalty payments against NUC Electronics, after the Court of Appeal had set aside the infringement decision concerning EP 2 028 981, declares the enforcement proceedings closed and places their costs on the claimant.

Facts and procedure

The Court of Appeal had set aside the Mannheim Local Division’s decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action. By brief of 10 April 2026 the claimant then withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the defendant, which did not comment on the withdrawal.

The applicable law

The order is made under Rule 354.4 of the Rules of Procedure and applies Rule 265 on withdrawal by analogy.

Question

May the withdrawal of a request for penalty payments made at the enforcement stage be permitted by applying the rules on withdrawal by analogy?

Decision

Yes. Applied by analogy, Rule 265 allows the withdrawal to be permitted: the defendant raised no objection and no interest of its own called for a decision on the merits of the penalty request. The enforcement proceedings are declared closed, the order is entered on the register and the claimant bears the costs of those proceedings.

Key points for practice

• Setting aside the infringement decision removes the basis for the penalty request, which the creditor has an interest in withdrawing without delay.
• The rule on withdrawal applies by analogy to enforcement incidents, the absence of objection making the permission straightforward.
• Withdrawal leaves the costs of the enforcement proceedings with the party that started them.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 265 and 354.4

Only the official text is authentic.