Opens in a new tab

Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 4 March 2026)

Date4 March 2026
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionGeneric Order
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_678/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CoA_678/2025 · APL_33504/2025
PartiesHurom Co., Ltd. v. NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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

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

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
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

  • UPC_CoA_678/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 4 March 2026 Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 4 March 2026) Generic Order · UPC_CoA_678/2025
  2. 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

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 3 155 936Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
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.