UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 409/2025

May 9, 2025·EP2028981 · JUICE EXTRACTOR

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Consumer products
Language
English
First decided
Mar 27, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Klaus GrabinskiLocked
Judge Emmanuel GougéLocked
Judge Peter BlokLocked
Judge Claus ElmerosLocked
Judge Kerstin RoselingerLocked

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

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 11 other proceedings

UPC CFI 2003/2026·UPC CFI 1409/2026·UPC CFI 1410/2026·UPC CFI 1394/2025·UPC CFI 1396/2025 and 6 more

11 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 2303/2026·UPC CFI 2304/2026·UPC CFI 1999/2026·UPC CFI 1411/2026·UPC CFI 1412/2026 and 6 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-03-27
    Appeal RoP220.1Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Claim construction of feature [1N] — whether 'longitudinally fixed' requires prevention of vertical lifting of the housing
    • Infringement of claims 1-4 and 6-9 of EP 2 028 981 by the NUC AUTO10 juice extractor
    • International jurisdiction of the UPC over acts of infringement in Turkey under Art. 7(2) and Art. 71b(3) Brussels Ia Regulation
    • Whether logging onto the UPC Case Management System constitutes 'entering an appearance' under Art. 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation
    • Relationship between R. 19.7 RoP and Art. 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation on tacit prorogation of jurisdiction
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-03-27Not public
Decision2026-03-27Not public
Decision2026-03-27Public
Oral procedure closed2025-12-11Not public
Note2025-12-11Not public
Communication2025-11-28Not public
Other Documents2025-11-28Not public
Communication2025-11-27Not public
Oral procedure opened2025-10-15Not public
Written procedure closed2025-10-15Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-13Not public
Exhibit2025-10-13Not public
Exhibit2025-10-13Not public
Exhibit2025-10-13Not public
Exhibit2025-10-13Not public
Exhibit2025-10-13Not public
Exhibit2025-10-13Not public
Statement of Response2025-10-13Not public
Receipt2025-10-13Not public
Summons to oral hearing2025-10-06Not public
Summons2025-10-06Public
Order2025-09-23Not public
Order2025-09-23Public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-07-25Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 32a2025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 30a2025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 23a2025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 312025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 302025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 232025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 322025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 222025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 332025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 252025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 24a2025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 262025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 22a2025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 242025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 282025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 25a2025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 292025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 31a2025-07-11Not public
Grounds of Appeal (NUC Europe and WARMCOOK)2025-07-11Not public
Exhibit D 272025-07-11Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-05-15Not public
Receipt2025-05-15Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-05-15Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-05-15Not public
2025-05-15 Rectified Statement of Appeal PBP to the UPC CoA (NUK Europe and Warmcook)2025-05-15Not public
Formal-checks_Request-for-correction2025-05-15Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-05-09Not public
2025-05-09 Statement of Appeal PBP to the UPC CoA (NUK Europe_Warmcook)2025-05-09Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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)
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

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