Opens in a new tab

Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 26 May 2026)

Date26 May 2026
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionWithdrawal (RoP265)
Registry referenceUPC-CoA-916/2025
PartiesHurom Co., Ltd. v. NUC Electronics Co., Ltd

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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 26 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_916/2025), the Court of Appeal permitted Hurom to withdraw its appeal against the decision of the Mannheim Local Division of 2 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_162/2024) in its dispute with NUC Electronics over EP 2 028 981, declared the proceedings closed and ordered Hurom to bear NUC’s costs in both instances. The decision is worth noting on two points: the absence of a legitimate interest in a decision where the withdrawing party bears the costs, and the temporal application of the amended Rule 370.9 RoP on reimbursement of court fees.

Question

Does a respondent seeking dismissal of the appeal have a legitimate interest that bars withdrawal, and which reimbursement rate applies to a withdrawal applied for in 2026 in an appeal lodged in 2025?

Decision

Withdrawal is possible until a final decision unless the other party has a legitimate interest in a decision, a rule that applies mutatis mutandis to an appellant (paragraph 12). NUC did not comment within the time allowed (paragraph 13) and, even taking its late statement of response into account, there is no legitimate interest since Hurom bears the costs (paragraph 14). The court set the value of the appeal at EUR 75,000 (paragraph 15) and gave effect to Hurom’s undertaking to bear NUC’s reasonable and proportionate costs in both instances (paragraphs 16 and 17). Amended Rule 370.9 RoP, in force from 1 January 2026, applies to applications lodged after 31 December 2025: the withdrawal application, made before the written procedure closed, attracts reimbursement of 50% of the appeal fees rather than 60% (paragraphs 18 to 22).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 152, 265.1, 265.2(c) and 370.9(b)
Other provisions
Administrative Committee decision of 4 November 2025 amending the table of court fees and the Rules of Procedure
Case law cited
10x v Curio, Court of Appeal, 5 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_234/2024), VMR Products v NJOY Netherlands, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2026

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.


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

No case number recorded in this record.
First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_162/2024

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Withdrawal (RoP265)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La cour d'appel autorise le désistement de Hurom, met les frais des deux instances à sa charge et limite le remboursement des taxes d'appel à 50 % en application de la règle 370.9 modifiée.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_162/2024).
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 2 028 981
Juice 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 (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) · Hurom v NUC Electronics Europe (CFI, 2 October 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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
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.