Opens in a new tab

Hurom v NUC Electronics (CFI, ORD_68864/2024, 11 March 2025)

Date11 March 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Registry referenceACT_17365/2024 · ORD_68864/2024
PartiesHurom Co., Ltd. v. NUC Electronics Co., Ltd

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 11 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_162/2024), the Mannheim Local Division (Tochtermann, presiding, Böttcher, rapporteur, and Perrotti) severed, in Hurom’s infringement action against NUC Electronics Co. on EP 2 028 981, the claims based on the national parts of the patent for Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, which will be dealt with in separate proceedings. The order shows how the UPC handled the CJEU’s BSH Hausgeräte judgment, delivered after the hearing had closed.

Question

Must the panel hold back its decision on the parts of the patent in Contracting Member States where a CJEU judgment bearing on jurisdiction over third States is delivered after the oral hearing?

Decision

Judgment C-339/22 of 25 February 2025 came after the hearing. Relying on it without hearing the parties would infringe their right to be heard, but a full second hearing would be disproportionate. Nothing requires the decision on the national parts ripe for judgment to be deferred, which would delay their enforcement although the Agreement does not aim at weaker protection than national courts would afford. Art. 33(2) UPCA concentrates proceedings before one division without requiring them to be joined. The panel must weigh the delay to enforcement. The parties, warned by order of 23 January 2025, had not objected. Severance is ordered applying Rules 302.1, 303.2 and 340.2.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 33(2)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 302.1, 303.2 and 340.2
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012
Arts. 71a and 71b(1) and (2)
Case law cited
No UPC decision is cited.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Les demandes fondées sur les parties polonaise, espagnole et britannique du brevet sont disjointes et seront jugées dans une procédure distincte.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 028 981
Juice extractor
recorded proprietor: Personne physique (déposant individuel)
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 16 other decision(s): Hurom v NUC Electronics Europe (CFI, ORD_11865/2025, 11 March 2025) · Hurom v NUC Electronics (CFI, ORD_11863/2025, 11 March 2025) · Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 26 May 2026) · Hurom v NUC Electronics (CFI, UPC_CFI_336/2025, 5 May 2026) · Hurom v NUC Electronics (CFI, UPC_CFI_335/2025, 5 May 2026) · Hurom v NUC Electronics (CFI, UPC_CFI_159/2024, 5 May 2026) · NUC Electronics Europe v Hurom (CoA, 27 March 2026) · Hurom v NUC Electronics (CFI, 2 October 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.