- within Privacy, Transport, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
Key takeaways
Recurring penalty payments may be imposed for non-compliance with court orders under Rule 354(3) RoP
The amount of penalty payments shall be determined by the court in light of the significance of the order in question (UPC_CoA_845/2024, Belkin v. Philips).
A prior threat of penalty payments is mandatory before imposition – also in provisional measures proceedings (Rule 354(4) RoP)
Notwithstanding the fact that Rule 118(8) RoP does not apply to provisional measures proceedings (UPC_CoA_699/2025, Kodak v. Fujifilm), a prior threat of coercive measures is also required in these proceedings. It follows from R. 354.4 RoP. Thus any court order for the payment of penalty payments in enforcement proceedings must be based on a prior threat contained either in the operative part of the main order or in a further order in this regard (UPC_CoA_699/2025, Kodak v. Fujifilm).
Culpable non-compliance with the enforced order/decision justifies setting the penalty at the maximum amount previously threatened
The Respondent showed no reaction to the information and accounting obligation despite formal service. The Court presumed culpable non-fulfilment given the absence of contrary facts. The substantial time elapsed since the original order and the Respondent’s persistently uncooperative conduct, justify the maximum daily rate (EUR 1,000 for each day of delay).
Penalty amounts cannot exceed the amount previously threatened
The Applicant requested escalating penalties of EUR 1,500 and EUR 2,500 per day, but the Court held that it could only impose up to EUR 1,000 per day as previously threatened. The Court could merely threaten a higher amount for future non-compliance.
Legal representatives remain responsible for court communication even after termination of their mandate
After the Respondent’s counsel notified the Court of the mandate’s termination, the Court clarified that the representatives remain responsible for communication between the Court and the Respondent.
Division
Local Divsion Hamburg
UPC number
UPC_CFI_1881/2025
Type of proceedings
Enforcement proceedings – Penalty payments (Rule 354 RoP)
Parties
Applicant: Brita SE
Respondent: Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
Patent(s)
EP 2 131 940 B1
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 354(3) RoP, R. 354(4) RoP, R. 118(8) RoP
2026_05_05-LD_Hamburg-UPC_CFI_1881_2025
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.
[View Source]