UPC CFI 163/2024
Apr 3, 2024·EP3155936 · JUICE EXTRACTION MODULE FOR JUICER
Action number: ACT 17434/2024
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (No infringement)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Hurom Co., Ltd.Operating co.
Representatives- Sabine Agé-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Klaus Haft-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Lonni Bas-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Théophile Rebuffel
Respondents- NUC Electronics Co., LtdOperating co.
- NUC Electronics Europe GmbHOperating co.
- WARMCOOKOperating co.
Representatives- Didier Intes-Beau de Loménie
- Rodrigo Calvo de No
- Vincent Gilbey
- Gaston Vedel-Beau de Loménie
- Division
- Paris LD
- Technology
- Other fieldsConsumer products
- Language
- English
- First decided
- May 23, 2025
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Paris LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Camille Lignières | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Carine Gillet | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Pierluigi Perrotti | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Jeroen Meewisse | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Hurom Co., Ltd. (29 cases)·NUC Electronics Group (29 cases)
This dispute contains 4 other proceedings
UPC CoA 678/2025·UPC CFI 557/2025·UPC CFI 418/2024·UPC APP 4027/2025
- —infringement
Summary: 1. Declares HUROM's requests for amendment of the patent at issue admissible; 2. Revokes the Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of claims No. 1 to 6 of the European Patent EP 3 155 936, as unconditionally amended in the Main Request, and claims 1 to 3 as amended in the Auxiliary request, in accordance with Article 138(1) EPC and Article 65(2) UPCA. 3. Dismisses all HUROM's infringement claims;
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-05-23 | Not public |
| DecisionOutcome | 2025-05-23 | Not public |
| Decision on the merits | 2025-05-23 | Public |
| recording Oral hearing | 2025-05-20 | Not public |
| recording Oral hearing | 2025-05-20 | Not public |
| Interim-Procedure-Closure | 2025-05-20 | Not public |
| Summon-Oral-Hearing | 2025-05-20 | Not public |
| Doublon Order R. 105.5 | 2025-05-20 | Public |
| Hearing-Dates | 2025-05-20 | Not public |
| Doublon order R 105.5 14 March 2025 | 2025-05-20 | Public |
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.
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) EPCNote: 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 RoPNote: 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) EPCNote: 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 RoPNote: 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.
Amended claims contain added matter due to unallowable intermediate generalisation (eight features alleged to be inextricably linked)
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPCReason: 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 RoPReason: 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 RoPReason: 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 RoPReason: Request insufficiently substantiated — no supporting evidence for the amount claimed.
Browse other cases on this principle.