Hurom v NUC Electronics (UPC_CFI_162/2024)
Decision date:
11 March 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- This case was related to other cases in the Mannheim LD concerning the same parties and different designations of the same patent. These cases dealt with alleged infringement of Hurom's patent relating to a juice extractor by the defendants' sale of the AUTO10 juicer. There was no revocation counterclaim.
- This decision dealt with jurisdiction over alleged infringements in Turkey. The first related case concerned possible infringements in UPCA contracting member states. The second related case concerned alleged infringements in EU, non-UPCA contracting member states and non-EU member states and was separated pending the CJEU's decision in BSH v Electrolux.
- The Mannheim LD decided that it did not have jurisdiction over the alleged Turkish infringements regardless of the outcome of Electrolux because of deficiencies in Hurom's pleadings. For example, it did not allege sufficient facts to fulfil the requirement of Article 7(2) recast Brussels Regulation, even if acts committed within the UPC territory that resulted in infringement in Turkey were covered by the provision.
- Moreover, international jurisdiction did not follow from Article 71b(3) recast Brussels Regulation, where competence based on the place where the damage occurred is limited to damage that arose in the respective member state. Thus, it requires a sufficient connection with a UPC member state. The mere location of a sales branch of the defendant in Germany was not sufficient. Hurom did not sufficiently allege that the European sales brand had anything to do with potential, actual or threatened infringing acts with respect to the Turkish part of the patent in suit.
- The decision relating to the second defendant is available here.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.