Hurom v NUC Electronics Europe (CFI, 23 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 23 May 2025, the Paris Local Division dismissed Hurom’s infringement action against NUC Electronics Co., NUC Electronics Europe and Warmcook under EP 3 155 936 (juice extraction module for a juicer) and, on the counterclaim, revoked the Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of the patent, as amended under both the main request and the first auxiliary request, for lack of inventive step (UPC_CFI_163/2024).

The decision shows the UPC’s flexible approach to added matter and its treatment of the combination of two prior art documents. It also holds that an objection based on Art. 34 UPCA is not a jurisdictional objection under Rule 19.

Facts and procedure

Hurom, a Korean company, brought the action on 3 April 2024, asserting claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 for France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. No preliminary objection was raised (paragraphs 5 and 6). The defendants, the Korean parent, its German subsidiary and an independent French distributor, counterclaimed for revocation. Hurom filed an unconditional application to amend (main request) and a first auxiliary request (paragraphs 7 and 8).

The applicable law

The division construed the claims in line with the Court of Appeal’s principles, which are the same for infringement and validity (paragraphs 35 and 36). Added matter was assessed under Arts 123(2) and 138(1)(c) EPC, applying the test set by the Court of Appeal in Abbott v Sibio. Inventive step under Art. 56 EPC. Admissibility of the application to amend falls under Rule 30.1(b), the territorial scope of the decision under Art. 34 UPCA.

Question

Is the application to amend admissible and free of added matter, are the amended claims inventive over documents D1 and D2, and is the claim concerning Poland well founded?

Decision

The application to amend was admissible (paragraphs 52 to 55). No added matter was found: feature 1.6.3 is supported by the description and figure 3, the alternatives described being options rather than inextricably linked features, and the defendants’ argument that eight features were inextricably linked was rejected (paragraphs 65 to 83).

The amended claims, however, lack inventive step. D1, which pursues the same objective of slow squeezing, is a realistic starting point (paragraph 94) and discloses features 1.7.1 to 1.7.3 (paragraph 96). The cover in D2 provides the covering and support that the skilled person would transfer to D1, without having to take the gear train as well (paragraphs 97 and 98). The dependent claims add nothing inventive, and the first auxiliary request, whose scope matches amended claim 5, fails likewise (paragraphs 105 to 129).

The Art. 34 UPCA objection concerns the scope of the decision, not jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over Poland was accepted, but Hurom did not prove the acts alleged, the turnover figures and accessibility of a website not relating to the products at issue (paragraphs 132 to 136). Entitlement was left undecided (paragraph 138). Hurom bears the costs. The defendants’ request for an interim award of EUR 175,000, insufficiently substantiated, was refused (paragraphs 142 to 144).

Key points for practice

• Added matter is assessed through the eyes of the skilled person: the elements of an embodiment are not all inextricably linked.
• D1 may serve as a starting point where it pursues the same objective, and borrowing from D2 may be limited to a single element.
• An objection based on Art. 34 UPCA may be raised outside the Rule 19 framework.
• Practical point: a claim concerning a State outside the Agreement requires proof of acts relating to the products at issue in that State, overall turnover figures are not enough.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 31 to 34, 65(2) and (5), 69 and 73(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 30, 118.5, 151 and 220.1(a)

European Patent Convention

Arts 56, 69, 84, 123(2), 138(1) and Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69

Case law cited

10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025, Mul-T-Lock France v IMC Créations, Paris Local Division, 21 March 2025, Alpinestars Research v Dainese, Milan Local Division, 15 April 2025, Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_1/2024), Mannheim Local Division, 11 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_159/2024), CJEU, BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux

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.