Hurom v NUC Electronics (UPC_CFI_163/2024)
Decision date:
23 May 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- This decision on the merits related to the alleged infringement of a patent owned by Hurom concerning a juice-squeezing module for a juicer. The patent is in force in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK (although this infringement action did not cover the UK). NUC counterclaimed for revocation. In response, Hurom rejected the revocation arguments and filed an application to unconditionally amend the patent, along with an auxiliary request to amend the patent to address the grounds of invalidity.
- NUC claimed that the patent as unconditionally amended by Hurom was invalid due to added matter based on an unallowable intermediate generalisation. However, the Paris LD disagreed. The court found that NUC's argument that eight features were inextricably linked was unfounded because NUC had not demonstrated the link. Furthermore, the skilled person would understand that, when the patent describes an embodiment, some features may be used to illustrate how it works without necessarily being an essential part of the invention (for example, the shaft gear).
- NUC also alleged lack of inventive step, which was successful. Claims 1 to 6 as unconditionally amended, as well as claims 1 to 3 as amended in the auxiliary request of the Dutch, French, German and Italian parts were held to lack inventive step.
- Hurom requested that the court rule on an injunction and remedies concerning infringement in Poland on the basis of the patent as granted. NUC objected, stating that the UPC lacked jurisdiction under Article 34 UPCA (territorial scope of decisions). Hurom responded that NUC's objection should have been raised as a preliminary objection pursuant to Rule 19 RoP within one month of the service of the statement of claim and therefore was late and should be declared inadmissible. In any event, Hurom maintained that the UPC has territorial jurisdiction over Poland in accordance with the recast Brussels Regulation.
- The Paris LD held that the dispute did concern the territorial scope of the UPC's decisions, which does not fall under the scope of Rule 19 RoP, which is limited to the jurisdiction and competence of the UPC, the competence of a division, and the language of the statement of claim. As such, NUC's objection based on Article 34 UPCA was admissible, but it was ultimately dismissed.
- Hurom's claim concerning alleged acts of infringement in Poland was admissible in light of the CJEU's decision in BSH v Electrolux. However, on the merits, Hurom had the burden of proof of the alleged facts. No facts concerning the alleged infringement had been introduced. Thus, Hurom's claim concerning Poland was dismissed as it was not well-founded.
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.