Hurom v NUC Electronics (CFI, 5 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 5 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_163/2024, ORD_4336/2025, EP 3 155 936), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division (Judge Lignières) declared inadmissible the sections of Hurom’s latest pleading dealing with infringement and remedies, together with two exhibits, and then allowed, under Rule 36, a final limited exchange before closing the written procedure. Hurom is suing NUC Electronics and Warmcook for infringement. The defendants have counterclaimed for revocation. The order, without numbered paragraphs, restates the discipline of pleading within each workflow.

Question

May a party raise new infringement arguments in a pleading reserved for the validity and amendment workflows, and can a further exchange be allowed under Rule 36?

Decision

Under Rule 12, the written procedure runs in separate workflows (infringement, counterclaim, amendment) and, in the infringement workflow, the defendants have the last word. Hurom’s new infringement arguments, raised at a stage where it should only have answered on validity and amendment, were inadmissible, since Rule 32.3 limits a rejoinder to matters raised in the reply. On grounds of fairness (point 2 of the Preamble) and under Rule 36, the judge allowed a short statement from Hurom limited to the defendants’ new arguments (8 pages, by 10 February 2025) and a response from the defendants (8 pages, by 15 February 2025), after which the written procedure closes.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: each pleading must stay within its workflow, an infringement argument slipped into the reply on the counterclaim may be excluded.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 12, 32.3, 35, 36 and 333

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.