Hurom v NUC Electronics Europe (CFI, 2 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 2 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_159/2024), the Mannheim Local Division ruled on the separated part of Hurom’s infringement action against NUC Electronics Europe and WARMCOOK concerning the Polish, Spanish, Turkish and UK parts of EP 2 028 981 (juice extractor). Applying the CJEU’s BSH Hausgeräte judgment, it accepted jurisdiction over national parts of non-UPC States, including States outside the EU, found claim 1 infringed in Poland, Spain and the UK, held the defendants liable in principle for damages and ordered them to provide information, while dismissing the Turkish claims for want of sufficient allegations. The decision applies on the merits the UPC’s jurisdiction over national parts outside its territory and shows that the applicable national law must be pleaded country by country.

Facts and procedure

Hurom, proprietor of the national parts at issue, complained that the defendants, based in Germany and France, marketed the « AUTO10 » juicer (paragraphs 1 and 2). Since BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22) was handed down on 25 February 2025, after the hearing, the panel separated the Polish, Spanish, Turkish and UK part of the dispute on 11 March 2025 and invited the parties to comment (paragraph 6). A second hearing took place on 4 September 2025. A parallel decision was given the same day against the Korean parent company in UPC_CFI_162/2024 (paragraph 3).

The applicable law

International jurisdiction rests on Article 71b(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation read with Articles 4(1) and 63(1) (paragraphs 33 and 34), and the competence of the local division on Article 33(1) and (2) UPCA and Rule 19.7 (paragraph 42). The law governing infringement is designated by Article 8(1) of the Rome II Regulation (paragraph 52), and the claim is construed under Article 69 EPC and its Protocol (paragraphs 47 to 49). Facts not specifically contested are deemed accepted under Rule 171.2 (paragraph 53).

Question

May the UPC hear an infringement action concerning the Polish, Spanish, Turkish and UK parts of a European patent against EU-domiciled defendants, and under which law are the consequences assessed?

Decision

The division accepted jurisdiction. Under BSH Hausgeräte, the court of the defendant’s domicile may hear infringement claims concerning national parts in EU States and, in principle, in third States. No exception applied to Turkey and the UK, neither being party to the Lugano Convention (paragraphs 35 to 37). Those principles apply to the UPC as a common court, and Article 34 UPCA does not bar jurisdiction over national parts of non-UPC States (paragraphs 38 to 40), whether acts before 1 June 2023 are covered was left open (paragraph 41). On the merits, the construction adopted on 11 March 2025 applies to the parts at issue (paragraphs 47 to 49), and infringement is governed by Polish, Spanish, Turkish and UK law respectively (paragraph 52). Offers and deliveries in Poland, Spain and the UK were not specifically contested, so infringement was established there (paragraphs 54 to 61). For Turkey, the indications relied on (markings, websites, the parent’s Turkish distributor) were insufficient and the claims were dismissed (paragraph 62). Liability for damages rests on the national provisions, with quantum left to proceedings under Rules 125 et seq. (paragraphs 66 to 69), moral damages and interim damages were refused (paragraphs 70 and 71). The defendants bear the costs of this part, the ceiling on recoverable costs applying to the dispute as a whole (paragraph 79), and the value in dispute was set at EUR 75,000.

Key points for practice

• The UPC decides on the merits concerning national parts of non-UPC States, including the UK and Turkey, where the defendant is domiciled in the EU.
• Infringement of each national part is governed by the law of that State under Article 8(1) of Rome II, and ancillary claims must rest on national provisions.
• Rule 171.2 applies in full: absent a specific denial, the alleged acts are taken as established, but an allegation with no factual basis calls for no denial.
• Practical point: a claimant extending its action to non-UPC countries must allege concrete acts, country by country, and the national basis for each remedy sought.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 31, 33(1) and (2), 34, 64(2)(a), 68, 69(1), 73(1) and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.7, 118, 125 and 171.2

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and Protocol on Interpretation

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 33, 34, 63(1) and 71b(1)

Other provisions

Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), Arts 1(1), 3 and 8(1), Polish Industrial Property Law, Arts 286 and 287, Spanish Patents Act, Arts 71 and 73, Patents Act 1977, section 61

Case law cited

CJEU, 25 February 2025, BSH Hausgeräte, C-339/22, Fives ECL v REEL, Court of Appeal, 16 January 2025, FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025, Dyson v Dreame International, Hamburg Local Division, 14 August 2025, decision of the Mannheim Local Division of 11 March 2025 in the same case

Related decisions

• Hurom v NUC Electronics, 2 October 2025, parallel decision against the parent company (UPC_CFI_162/2024).

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.