UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 162/2024

Apr 3, 2024·EP2028981 · JUICE EXTRACTOR

Action number: ACT 17365/2024

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)Set aside on appeal, Mar 27, 2026
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Mannheim LD
Technology
  • Other fields
    Consumer products
Language
English
First decided
Mar 11, 2025
Last decision
May 5, 2026
Appealed
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Mannheim LDLockedLocked
Judge Peter TochtermannLockedLocked
Judge Dirk BöttcherLockedLocked
Judge Pierluigi PerrottiLockedLocked

At the UPC: Hurom Co., Ltd. (29 cases)·NUC Electronics Group (29 cases)

Decisions
  • 2026-05-05
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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 ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Patent infringement (juice extractor)
    • Claim interpretation
    • Separated part of proceedings
  • 2025-03-11
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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
Document titleDatePublic
Order2026-05-05Not public
Order2026-05-05Public
Communication2026-04-13Not public
Receipt2026-04-10Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-10Not public
Application document Claimant2026-04-10Not public
Receipt2026-03-31Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-31Not public
Document Defendant2026-03-31Not public
Communication2026-03-31Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • No infringement of claim 1 of EP 2 028 981 in the separated proceedings covering Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.
  • Infringement of EP 2 028 981 in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom by NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Reason: 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.