UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

ACT_17434/2024

JUICE EXTRACTION MODULE FOR JUICER

InfringementMain Infringement ActionParis LDInfringement Action—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Note: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 34 UPCA; Rule 19 RoP

    Note: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1) EPC

    Note: 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

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

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Reason: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 34 UPCA; Rule 19 RoP

    Reason: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 13m RoP; R. 171.1 RoP

    Reason: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 118.5 RoP

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

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
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

Browse other cases on this principle.