Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 28 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 28 August 2026 (UPC_CoA_678/2025), the Court of Appeal dismissed Hurom’s appeal against the Paris Local Division’s decision of 23 May 2025, which had revoked the Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of EP 3 155 936 (a juice squeezing module for a juicer) and dismissed its infringement claims against NUC Electronics, NUC Electronics Europe and Warmcook. The decision settles three points of method: the admissibility review of an application to amend under Rule 30.1 RoP is confined to whether an explanation was given, its merits being a validity question, the unamended description may be used to construe an amended claim, and, for the Polish part of the patent, outside the UPCA territory, the claimant must prove that the acts complained of infringe under Polish law.

Facts and procedure

Hurom sued on 3 April 2024 for infringement in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation and Hurom applied to amend the patent (paragraphs 1 to 11). On appeal, Hurom relied on a « New Main Request » and two new auxiliary requests. NUC and Warmcook cross-appealed (paragraphs 15 to 18).

The applicable law

Rule 30.1(b) RoP requires an explanation of why the amendments satisfy Arts. 84 and 123(2) and (3) EPC, Rule 222.2 RoP governs new submissions on appeal. On Poland, the Court applied Arts. 4, 8, 24(4) and 71a of Regulation 1215/2012, the CJEU’s BSH Hausgeräte judgment and Art. 34 UPCA and, on the applicable law, Art. 8 of the Rome II Regulation together with Art. 24(2)(a) UPCA.

Question

Are the new requests to amend filed on appeal admissible, is the amended patent inventive, and may the UPC rule on infringement in Poland, and on what evidence?

Decision

The New Main Request is admissible, since Hurom gave the required explanation in its reply (paragraphs 26 to 29), the new auxiliary requests are inadmissible, as the issues had been debated at first instance and Hurom did not show that it could not reasonably have filed them then (paragraphs 30 to 35). The description is an aid to interpretation and the claims are not limited to the embodiments (paragraphs 48, 49 and 52 to 55). Starting from Chinese utility model CN 202365584 U (D1), the missing features on the cover of the brush rotating means were routine measures, reinforced by D2: claim 1 lacks inventive step and claims 2 and 3 fall with it (paragraphs 56 to 85). Infringement in the four states therefore fails (paragraph 86). For Poland, the jurisdiction objection, raised in the statement of defence, was admissible, but the UPC has jurisdiction over infringement despite the exclusive Polish jurisdiction over validity (paragraphs 89 to 98). With no evidence of infringing acts under Polish law, nor of acts actually performed in Poland, the claim fails (paragraphs 101 to 107). The cross-appeal was dismissed (paragraphs 108 to 112). Hurom bears the costs of the appeal and must pay EUR 100,000 as an interim award, half of the Rule 152.2 RoP ceiling, NUC and Warmcook bear the costs of the cross-appeal (paragraphs 113 to 115).

Key points for practice

• The Rule 30.1(b) RoP review is formal: an explanation addressing Arts. 84 and 123 EPC makes the request admissible (paragraphs 26 to 29).
• Auxiliary requests responding to a construction already argued at first instance cannot be held back for the appeal (paragraphs 33 and 34).
• Art. 34 UPCA does not confine UPC jurisdiction to the territory of the Contracting Member States (paragraph 98).
• Practical point: for a non-UPCA state, the claimant must prove both the acts performed there and that they infringe under local law, for instance through an expert opinion on foreign law (paragraphs 104 and 105).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 24(2)(a), 31, 34, 43, 54, 65(2) and (5), 73 and 76

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.1, 19.7, 23, 30.1(b), 152.2 and 222.2

European Patent Convention

Art. 56, 69, 84, 123(2) and (3) and 138(1)(a) and (c)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts. 4(1), 8, 24(4) and 71a

Other provisions

Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), Art. 8, Lugano Convention

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_464/2024), Amgen v Sanofi and Regeneron, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024), NUC and Warmcook v Hurom, Court of Appeal, 27 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_409/2025), Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 2 June 2026 (UPC_CoA_312/2025), CJEU, 25 February 2025, BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux, C-339/22

Related decisions

• Hurom v NUC Electronics Europe, 23 May 2025, the Paris Local Division decision under appeal.

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.