Hurom v NUC Electronics (CFI, 2 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 2 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_162/2024), the Mannheim Local Division dismissed the separated part of Hurom’s infringement action against the Korean company NUC Electronics Co., Ltd concerning the Polish, Spanish and UK parts of EP 2 028 981 (juice extractor). It accepted jurisdiction over this non-EU defendant on the basis of the place of the harmful event as interpreted in light of BSH Hausgeräte, but held that the claimant had not shown, under the applicable national laws, that deliveries made by the German subsidiary and the French distributor were attributable to the parent company. The decision is a reminder that, beyond jurisdiction, group liability for non-UPC national parts turns on national law which the party relying on it must present.

Facts and procedure

Hurom, proprietor of the national parts at issue, targeted the « AUTO10 » juicer sold under the « Kuvings » brand (paragraphs 1 to 5). The decision of 11 March 2025 dealt with the other national parts and declined jurisdiction for Turkey. The panel separated the Polish, Spanish and UK part, since BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22) was handed down on 25 February 2025, after the hearing, and invited the parties’ comments (paragraph 6). A second hearing took place on 4 September 2025. A parallel decision was given the same day against NUC Electronics Europe and WARMCOOK in UPC_CFI_159/2024.

The applicable law

The panel applied Articles 71b(2) and 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation (paragraphs 40 to 47), Article 33(1)(a) and (2) UPCA for the division’s competence (paragraphs 54 and 55), Article 8(1) of the Rome II Regulation for the applicable law (paragraphs 64 and 65) and Rule 171.2 for uncontested facts. Costs were allocated under Article 69(1) UPCA and Rule 118.5 (paragraph 81).

Question

Does the UPC have jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant in respect of national parts in non-UPC States, and can the acts of a subsidiary and a distributor be attributed to it without the applicable national law being shown?

Decision

Jurisdiction was upheld. BSH Hausgeräte also applies to Article 7(2): jurisdiction is not restricted by Article 24(4), and the place of the harmful event may be where the acts were committed, not only the State of registration (paragraphs 40 to 45). No restriction applied to the UK (paragraph 48), the allegations of deliveries to those countries were not a statement « into the blue » (paragraphs 49 to 51), and attribution is a matter for the merits (paragraph 52), whether acts before 1 June 2023 are covered was left open (paragraph 53). On the merits, the action failed. Offers and deliveries by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and Warmcook were undisputed (paragraph 69), but no direct acts of the defendant in those territories were alleged (paragraph 68). It is not self-evident that the national laws attribute the acts of separate entities to the parent, and the party relying on national law must present it: a bare assertion of contribution without detail is not enough (paragraphs 71 and 73 to 75). As the separated part represented only about 10% of the original value, the claimant bears the court fees and each party its own costs (paragraphs 82 and 83), the value in dispute was set at EUR 75,000 (paragraph 84).

Key points for practice

• UPC jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant for non-UPC national parts may rest on the place where the infringing acts occurred.
• Jurisdiction and liability are distinct: attributing the acts of subsidiaries or distributors to a parent is a merits question under each national law.
• The party relying on the applicable national law must plead and establish it, including the relevant case law.
• Practical point: against a foreign parent, the claimant must set out, country by country, the national conditions for attributing group acts and show that they are met.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 31, 33(1)(a) and (2), 34, 69(1), 73(1) and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.7, 118.5 and 171.2

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and Protocol on Interpretation

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 7(2), 24(4), 33, 34 and 71b

Other provisions

Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), Arts 1(1), 3 and 8(1)

Case law cited

CJEU, 25 February 2025, BSH Hausgeräte, C-339/22, CJEU, 19 April 2012, Wintersteiger, C-523/10, CJEU, 3 October 2013, Pinckney, C-170/12, Fives ECL v REEL, Court of Appeal, 16 January 2025, FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025, Dyson v Dreame International, Hamburg Local Division, 14 August 2025, decisions of the Mannheim Local Division of 11 March 2025 in this case and in UPC_CFI_159/2024

Related decisions

• Hurom v NUC Electronics Europe, 2 October 2025, parallel decision finding infringement by the subsidiary and the distributor (UPC_CFI_159/2024).

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.