UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 162/2024

3. Apr. 2024·EP2028981 · JUICE EXTRACTOR

Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 17365/2024

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)In der Berufung aufgehoben, 27. März 2026
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Mannheim LD
Technologie
  • Other fields
    Consumer products
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
11. März 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
5. Mai 2026
Berufung
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Mannheim LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Peter TochtermannGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Dirk BöttcherGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Pierluigi PerrottiGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Hurom Co., Ltd. (29 Verfahren)·NUC Electronics Group (29 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-05
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the defendant following the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the underlying infringement action. The withdrawal was permitted by the court under R. 265 RoP applied by analogy, proceedings were declared closed, and the claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Withdrawal of penalty payment request under R. 354.4 RoP
    • Application of R. 265 RoP by analogy to withdrawal of enforcement proceedings
    • Allocation of costs of enforcement proceedings
  • 2025-10-02
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the separated Polish, Spanish and UK part of Hurom Co. Ltd.'s infringement action against NUC Electronics Co. Ltd. (Korea) concerning EP 2 028 981 (juice extractor). The panel held that the contested embodiment implements all features of claim 1, but that the claimant had not shown how the acts of its German subsidiary and French distributor are attributable to this defendant under Polish, Spanish and UK national law, which it was for the claimant to plead.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Patent infringement (juice extractor)
    • Claim interpretation
    • Separated part of proceedings
  • 2025-03-11
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Mannheim Local Division procedural order in infringement proceedings by Hurom Co., Ltd. against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 028 981. Following the ECJ's decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) on international jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation, the panel ordered separation of proceedings: a partial decision will be issued on national parts for which jurisdiction is established, while the question of jurisdiction over non-EU defendants is separated for further consideration after the parties can comment on the ECJ ruling. No substantive infringement decision issued.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Separation of proceedings (R. 302.1, 303.2, 340.2 RoP)
    • International jurisdiction (Brussels Ia Regulation, Art. 71a/71b)
    • ECJ C-339/22 BSH Hausgeräte decision on UPC jurisdiction over non-EU defendants
    • Juicer device infringement
  • 2025-03-11

    Zusammenfassung: Decision by Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_162/2024, 11 March 2025) finding NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. liable for direct infringement of claim 1 of EP 2 028 981 B1 (slow juicer / juice extractor) in France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark and Romania. An injunction was granted, damages were declared owed, and information obligations were imposed. The decision extensively addressed the intertemporal applicability of UPCA substantive law vs. national law to pre-UPCA and ongoing acts, and the primacy of Art. 26 Brussels Ia Reg. over R. 19.7 RoP on submission of jurisdiction.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (7)
    • Patent infringement (direct infringement found)
    • Injunction granted
    • Damages declared
    • Intertemporal applicability of UPCA vs national law
    • Art. 26 Brussels Ia Reg. primacy over R. 19.7 RoP
    • Right to information (Art. 67, 68 UPCA)
    • Juice extractor / slow juicer patent
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Anordnung2026-05-05Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-05-05Öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-04-13Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-04-10Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-04-10Nicht öffentlich
Application document Claimant2026-04-10Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-31Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-31Nicht öffentlich
Document Defendant2026-03-31Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-03-31Nicht öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

This is the separated part of the Hurom v. NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. proceedings (Korean parent entity) concerning EP 2 028 981 (juice extractor), covering alleged infringement in Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The Mannheim Local Division dismissed this separated action because Hurom had not specifically asserted that NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.'s distributors for Poland and the UK offered or sold the contested products, and NUC had no Spanish distributor; costs of the court were borne by Hurom for this separated part, with each party bearing its own legal costs.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • No infringement of claim 1 of EP 2 028 981 in the separated proceedings covering Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA

    Hinweis: The court dismissed the separated portion of the infringement action against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korean parent), finding that Claimant did not specifically assert that defendant's distributors for Poland and UK offered or sold contested embodiments, and defendant has no distributor in Spain.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • Infringement of EP 2 028 981 in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom by NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA

    Begründung: Claimant did not specifically assert that defendant's distributors offered or sold contested embodiments in Poland and UK, and defendant had no distributor in Spain; only shipments by defendant's German subsidiary and French distributor were asserted, whose focus was in France and Germany covered by the earlier decision.