Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 4 March 2026)
| Date | 4 March 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Generic Order |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_678/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CoA_678/2025 · APL_33504/2025 |
| Parties | Hurom Co., Ltd. v. NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 28 August 2026 : Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 28 August 2026) UPC_CoA_678/2025
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
In an order of 4 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_678/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal rejected Hurom’s request to file a further reply after NUC’s Statement of Response and cross-appeal, in the appeal against the Paris Local Division decision of 23 May 2025 concerning EP 3 155 936. The order restates that the written procedure on appeal is closed and that the hearing date carries weight.
Question
Can an appellant obtain, under Rule 36, a further exchange of pleadings to answer new prior art (D5 and D6) and inadmissibility objections raised by the respondent against its new auxiliary requests?
Decision
The request was admissible but rejected (paragraph 8). The written procedure on appeal is limited and no further exchange is provided for unless a cross-appeal has been lodged (Rules 237 and 238) (paragraph 9). Rule 36 allows further pleadings on a reasoned request, in particular where due process requires it (paragraph 11). NUC’s objections answered the new auxiliary requests, and D5 and D6, being public documents, could not have been filed earlier (paragraphs 12 and 13). Hurom waited two months after the Statement of Response although the hearing of 2 April 2026 had been scheduled, and the parties can address each other’s positions at the hearing (paragraphs 14 and 15).
Key points for practice
- Rule 36 gives no right to the last written word: prior art raised in answer to new auxiliary requests is for the oral hearing (paragraphs 13 and 15).
- Practical point: a Rule 36 request should follow the opponent’s pleading promptly, a two-month wait counts against it (paragraph 14).
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 41(3), Art. 42(2) and Art. 73(4)
- Rules of Procedure
- Preamble (paragraphs 4 and 5), Rules 36, 222.2, 224.2, 233.3, 235, 237 and 238
- Case law cited
- Scandit v Hand Held Products, Court of Appeal, 1 November 2024, Amazon v Nokia, Court of Appeal, 24 March 2025, Otec v Steros, Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_579/2025)
Related decisions
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.
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.
Parties
- claimantHurom Co., Ltd.18 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantNUC Electronics Co., Ltd.10 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantNUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOKFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 4 March 2026 Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 4 March 2026) Generic Order · UPC_CoA_678/2025
- 28 August 2026 Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 28 August 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_678/2025
La cour d'appel confirme l'annulation du brevet EP 3 155 936 pour défaut d'activité inventive et le rejet des demandes en contrefaçon, y compris pour la Pologne, faute de preuve d'actes contrefaisants selon le droit polonais.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic Order
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La cour d'appel rejette la demande de réplique supplémentaire de l'appelant : hors appel incident, la phase écrite est close et les nouvelles antériorités opposées aux requêtes subsidiaires seront discutées à l'audience.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 155 936mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 28 August 2026) cited in this record
- OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA Innovative (CoA, 7 November 2025) cited in this record
- Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l. v Nokia Technologies (CoA, 24 March 2025) cited in this record
- Scandit v Hand Held Products (CoA, 1 November 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 155 936 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 28 August 2026) · Hurom v NUC Electronics Europe (CFI, 23 May 2025) · Hurom v NUC Electronics (CFI, 5 February 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked 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.