- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)Set aside on appeal, Mar 27, 2026ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Respondents
- NUC Electronics Co., LtdOperating co.
Representatives- Martin Momtschilow-Preu Bohlig & Partner
- Division
- Mannheim LD
- Technology
- Other fieldsConsumer products
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Mar 11, 2025
- Last decision
- May 5, 2026
- Appealed
- Set aside by UPC CoA 410/2025 · Mar 27, 2026
- Set aside by UPC CoA 420/2025 · Mar 27, 2026
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Mannheim LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Peter Tochtermann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Dirk Böttcher | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Pierluigi Perrotti | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Hurom Co., Ltd. (29 cases)·NUC Electronics Group (29 cases)
This dispute contains 11 other proceedings
UPC CFI 2303/2026·UPC CFI 2304/2026·UPC CFI 1999/2026·UPC CFI 1411/2026·UPC CFI 1412/2026 and 6 more
8 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CFI 2003/2026·UPC CFI 1409/2026·UPC CFI 1410/2026·UPC CFI 1396/2025·UPC CoA 435/2025 and 3 more
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Mannheim LD·2024
- 2026-05-05Infringement 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
- 2025-10-02Infringement 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
- 2025-03-11Infringement 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 title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Order | 2026-05-05 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-05-05 | Public |
| Communication | 2026-04-13 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-04-10 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-04-10 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-04-10 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-03-31 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-03-31 | Not public |
| Document Defendant | 2026-03-31 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-03-31 | Not public |
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.
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 UPCANote: 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.
Infringement of EP 2 028 981 in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom by NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCAReason: 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.
Browse other cases on this principle.