2025-05-30 - CoA - Belkin v. Philips - UPC_CoA_845/2024

1. A request for an order to communicate information made under Art. 67(1) UPCA must, as a rule, include the time period for providing the information (calculated from the notification under R. 118.8, first sentence, RoP, or in case of an order in provisional measure proceedings from the date of service of that order). The time period must therefore be incorporated into the decision or final order. If no time period is set in the final order or decision, it is the claimant's responsibility to specify a reasonable time period for the communication of information. 2. Since penalty payments serve not only a coercive function but also have a punitive nature, their imposition is justified even where the defendant has, in the meantime, complied belatedly with the obligation to communicate information as ordered. 3. The burden of presentation and proof for the assertion that the obligation to communicate information as ordered has been fulfilled lies with the defendant. 4. The information mentioned in Art. 67(1)(b) UPCA encompasses information on the prices paid by the infringer for the contested embodiments (manufacturer prices). 5. Art. 67(1) UPCA does not specify whether the information must be provided in paper or electronic format. Where the order to communicate information does not indicate the form in which the information is to be provided, the defendant is generally free to choose whether to provide the information in paper or electronic format.

The Court of Appeal partially overturned / upheld an order by the Munich Local Division regarding a penalty payment following the non-compliance with the enforcement of a claim for information. The CoA went into great detail as to the requirements for enforcing such claim for information and the obligations by both parties (paper vs electronic, time periods etc).