UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 409/2025

9. Mai 2025·EP2028981: JUICE EXTRACTOR

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Oral Phase
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Klaus Haft (Hoyng Rokh Monegier)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Christian Kau (Preu Bohlig & Partner); Martin Momtschilow (Preu Bohlig & Partner)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Furniture & Household
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
27. März 2026
Ansprüche
Streitig1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9
Nicht verletzt1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9
Hinweise: Claims 2-4 and 6-9 are dependent on claim 1 and fail for the same reason — the attacked embodiment (AUTO10) does not implement feature [1N] of claim 1 because its fixing elements do not prevent vertical lifting of the housing from the drive unit.
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-03-27
    Nicht verletztBerufungsentscheidungAppeal RoP220.1

    The Court of Appeal reversed the Mannheim Local Division's infringement findings, holding that the attacked embodiment (NUC AUTO10 slow juicer) does not implement feature [1N] of claim 1 of EP 2 028 981 because its fixing elements do not prevent the housing from being vertically lifted from the drive unit, which the Court found to be required by the claim. As a result, none of the asserted claims (1-4, 6-9) are infringed by NUC or WARMCOOK, and HUROM's separate appeal seeking to extend jurisdiction over Turkey was also rejected.

    Rechtsfragen:Claim construction of feature [1N] — whether 'longitudinally fixed' requires prevention of vertical lifting of the housingInfringement of claims 1-4 and 6-9 of EP 2 028 981 by the NUC AUTO10 juice extractorInternational jurisdiction of the UPC over acts of infringement in Turkey under Art. 7(2) and Art. 71b(3) Brussels Ia RegulationWhether logging onto the UPC Case Management System constitutes 'entering an appearance' under Art. 26(1) Brussels Ia RegulationRelationship between R. 19.7 RoP and Art. 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation on tacit prorogation of jurisdiction
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Decision2026-03-27Öffentlich
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2025-12-11Nicht öffentlich
Note2025-12-11Nicht öffentlich
action.communication.general2025-11-28Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2025-11-28Nicht öffentlich
action.communication.general2025-11-27Nicht öffentlich
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2025-10-15Nicht öffentlich
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2025-10-15Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2025-10-13Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit2025-10-13Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit2025-10-13Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit2025-10-13Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit2025-10-13Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit2025-10-13Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit2025-10-13Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Response2025-10-13Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2025-10-13Nicht öffentlich
action.summons.oralHearing2025-10-06Nicht öffentlich
Summons2025-10-06Öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2025-09-23Nicht öffentlich
Order2025-09-23Öffentlich
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-07-25Nicht öffentlich
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 32a2025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 30a2025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 23a2025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 312025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 302025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 232025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 322025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 222025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 332025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 252025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 24a2025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 262025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 22a2025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 242025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 282025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 25a2025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 292025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 31a2025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Grounds of Appeal (NUC Europe and WARMCOOK)2025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit D 272025-07-11Nicht öffentlich
Panel-Appointment2025-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2025-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-05-15Nicht öffentlich
2025-05-15 Rectified Statement of Appeal PBP to the UPC CoA (NUK Europe and Warmcook)2025-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Formal-checks_Request-for-correction2025-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-05-09Nicht öffentlich
2025-05-09 Statement of Appeal PBP to the UPC CoA (NUK Europe_Warmcook)2025-05-09Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Feature [1N] requires that the longitudinal fixation of the housing to the drive unit prevents vertical lifting of the housing, not merely lateral movement; the AUTO10's fixing elements (circumferential rim and protrusion) only prevent rotation and lateral movement but not vertical lifting

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC; EP 2 028 981 description paras 0024-0025, 0053, 0075-0076, 0081; Figures 1, 6, 7

  • NUC Korea's mere access to the UPC Case Management System (logging on with the served access code) before filing any defence did not constitute 'entering an appearance' under Art. 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, so jurisdiction over Turkey was not established by tacit prorogation

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation; CJEU judgment C-112/13 (A v B, 11 September 2014, para. 50, 54); CJEU judgment C-433/16 (BMW AG v Acacia, 13 July 2017, para. 34)
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The Mannheim LD's claim construction that 'longitudinally fixed' in feature [1N] merely requires longitudinal (vertical) alignment and prevention of lateral/rotational movement, without requiring prevention of vertical lifting

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; impugned decision ORD_68865/2024 paras 73, 76, 85-86

  • NUC Korea's act of logging onto the UPC Case Management System (via its UPC representative using the access code) constituted 'entering an appearance' under Art. 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, such that UPC jurisdiction over Turkey was established by tacit prorogation in the absence of a preliminary objection under R. 19 RoP

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation; R. 19.7 RoP