Hurom v NUC Electronics Europe (CFI, ORD_68865/2024, 11 March 2025)
| Date | 11 March 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Registry reference | ACT_17336/2024 · ORD_68865/2024 |
| Parties | Hurom Co., Ltd. v. WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By procedural order of 11 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_159/2024), the Mannheim Local Division (Tochtermann, presiding, Böttcher, rapporteur, and Perrotti) severed, in Hurom’s infringement action against NUC Electronics Europe and WARMCOOK on EP 2 028 981, the claims based on the national parts of the patent for Poland, Spain, Turkey 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
- Practical point: a claimant asserting national parts outside the UPC should expect them to be severed where the jurisdictional point is not ripe, with no delay for the Contracting Member States.
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)
- 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
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
Parties
- claimantHurom Co., Ltd.18 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantNUC Electronics Europe GmbH9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantWARMCOOK8 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les demandes fondées sur les parties polonaise, espagnole, turque 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
EP 2 028 981mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Hurom v NUC Electronics Europe (CFI, ORD_11865/2025, 11 March 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 028 981Juice 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.