UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

ACT 17434/2024

—·EP3155936: JUICE EXTRACTION MODULE FOR JUICER

Verfahrensdetails
Status
—
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter:
Division
Paris LD
Richter
Technology
Consumer Goods · Kitchen Appliances · Furniture & Household
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
23. Mai 2025
Ansprüche
Streitig1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Nichtig erklärt1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Hinweise: Paris Local Division revoked claims 1-6 of EP 3 155 936 as per Main Request (Dutch/French/German/Italian parts) and claims 1-3 as per Auxiliary Request; all infringement claims dismissed; operative part explicitly names claims 1 to 6.
Entscheidungen
  • 2025-05-23
    Nichtig erklärtVerletzung (Hauptsache)Infringement Action

    Paris Local Division revoked the Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of claims 1-6 of EP 3 155 936 (Hurom slow juicer) as unconditionally amended in the Main Request, and claims 1-3 as amended in the Auxiliary Request, following NUC Electronics' counterclaim for revocation. The patent was found invalid under Art. 138(1) EPC. All of Hurom's infringement claims were dismissed. Hurom's claims for infringement in Poland were held admissible (BSH v Electrolux principle) but dismissed on the merits for lack of evidence. Hurom was ordered to bear all costs.

    Rechtsfragen:Patent validity under Art. 138(1) EPCAdmissibility of unconditionally amended claims (added matter)Long-arm jurisdiction for infringement in non-CMS states (Poland)Territorial scope of UPC decisions under Art. 34 UPCA vs R. 19 RoP preliminary objectionBurden of proof for infringement in non-CMS territories
Dokumente
  • EBC1229F6C34AA45161E223444B769E2_en.pdf2025-05-23EN
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Hurom Co. Ltd. sued NUC Electronics and WARMCOOK before the Paris Local Division for infringement of EP 3 155 936 (a slow juicer patent), while NUC counterclaimed for revocation. The court revoked claims 1–6 as amended in the Main Request and claims 1–3 as amended in the Auxiliary Request under Art. 138(1) EPC, and dismissed all of Hurom's infringement claims. An important procedural ruling held that Art. 34 UPCA (territorial scope) is not a jurisdiction matter challengeable under R. 19 RoP; separately, Hurom's Polish infringement claim was admissible under BSH v Electrolux but failed for lack of factual evidence.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Defendant's added-matter inadmissibility argument based on alleged inextricable linking of eight features fails because defendant did not demonstrate the link

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Hinweis: Paris LD held that the skilled person understands that features used to illustrate an embodiment are not necessarily essential parts of the invention; the amended claims did not therefore add matter.

  • Article 34 UPCA territorial scope objection is admissible but is not a jurisdiction matter under R. 19 RoP

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 34 UPCA; Rule 19 RoP

    Hinweis: Court distinguished jurisdiction (Arts. 31-33 UPCA, challengeable under R. 19 RoP) from territorial scope of decisions (Art. 34 UPCA); Art. 34 objection is admissible but falls outside R. 19 RoP.

  • Claims amended in Main Request are invalid — revocation upheld

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1) EPC

    Hinweis: Court revoked EP 3 155 936 in its Main Request and Auxiliary Request amended forms, sustaining NUC's invalidity challenges.

  • Infringement claim for Poland admissible under BSH v Electrolux but dismissed for lack of evidence

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: CJEU BSH v Electrolux; R. 13m RoP; R. 171.1 RoP

    Hinweis: Court found Poland claim admissible (long-arm jurisdiction confirmed) but Hurom provided no factual evidence of actual infringement of specifically the products referred to in the application in Poland.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Amended claims contain added matter due to unallowable intermediate generalisation (eight features alleged to be inextricably linked)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Begründung: Defendant did not demonstrate the alleged inextricable link between the eight features; the skilled person would understand that illustrative embodiment features are not necessarily essential.

  • Article 34 UPCA objection falls within scope of preliminary objection under R. 19 RoP

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 34 UPCA; Rule 19 RoP

    Begründung: R. 19 RoP covers only jurisdiction and competence (Arts. 31-33 UPCA); Art. 34 concerns territorial scope of decisions, which is distinct from jurisdiction.

  • Infringement claim in Poland based on general European accessibility of websites and aggregate European turnover

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 13m RoP; R. 171.1 RoP

    Begründung: No factual elements introduced specifically addressing infringing products sold in Poland; general website accessibility and overall European turnover figures insufficient to establish Polish infringement.

  • NUC's request for interim costs award of EUR 175,000

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 118.5 RoP

    Begründung: Request insufficiently substantiated — no supporting evidence for the amount claimed.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Added matter — intermediate generalisation requires demonstration that features are inextricably linkedSkilled person understands illustrative embodiment features need not be essential to the inventionArt. 34 UPCA (territorial scope) is distinct from jurisdiction under Arts. 31-33 UPCA and R. 19 RoPLong-arm jurisdiction over non-CMS states follows CJEU BSH v ElectroluxBurden of proof for infringement in non-CMS territory lies with claimant (R. 13m, R. 171.1 RoP)Interim costs award requires evidentiary substantiation

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.