NUC Electronics Europe v Hurom (CoA, 27 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 27 March 2026 in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_409/2025, UPC_CoA_410/2025 and UPC_CoA_420/2025, the Court of Appeal sets aside the two orders of 11 March 2025 in which the Mannheim Local Division had found infringement of EP 2 028 981 (a juice extractor) by the « AUTO10 » model distributed by NUC Electronics Europe, WARMCOOK and NUC Electronics Co. It dismisses Hurom’s requests other than those concerning Turkey, rejects Hurom’s own appeal on that point, and orders Hurom to bear the costs of both instances.

The decision matters on two counts: it gives a functional reading of a fixing feature, leading to a finding of non-infringement, and it holds that merely logging onto the Case Management System (CMS) is not an entry of appearance conferring jurisdiction under Article 26 of the Brussels Ia Regulation.

Facts and procedure

Hurom sued NUC Electronics Europe and WARMCOOK (UPC_CFI_159/2024) and the Korean company NUC Electronics Co. (UPC_CFI_162/2024) before the Mannheim Local Division, for every state in which the patent is in force, whether or not a UPC state. In two orders of 11 March 2025 the Local Division found claim 1 infringed in the UPC states and granted an injunction, recall and destruction orders and liability for damages. It separated the claims for Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, and held the action inadmissible for Turkey against NUC Electronics Co. for lack of jurisdiction. The defendants appealed on infringement and Hurom on Turkey. The appeal hearing took place on 10 December 2025.

The applicable law

Claims are construed under Article 69 EPC and its Protocol, following the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in NanoString v 10x Genomics. On international jurisdiction, Art. 31 UPCA refers to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, Article 26(1) of which provides for jurisdiction by the defendant’s entry of appearance. Rule 19.7 RoP deems jurisdiction accepted where no preliminary objection is lodged.

Question

Is feature [1N], the longitudinal fixing of the housing to the drive unit, present in the attacked product, and did NUC Electronics Co.’s logging onto the CMS without a preliminary objection amount to an appearance giving jurisdiction over Turkey?

Decision

On the merits, the fixing required by [1N] must prevent the housing and screw from being lifted vertically off the drive unit (paragraph 37), the hooks in the embodiments are not an additional limitation and subclaims 6 and 12 do not narrow claim 1 (paragraphs 35 and 36). In the attacked product, the rim and protrusion prevent sideways movement and rotation but not lifting: the housing rests by its own weight alone, so [1N] is not met and the dependent claims are not infringed (paragraphs 38 to 43). On jurisdiction, Article 26(1) is interpreted autonomously. Merely accessing the file in the CMS shows no deliberate choice, and only the first defensive step, a preliminary objection or a Statement of defence, can amount to an appearance (paragraphs 50 to 55). As NUC Electronics Co. contested jurisdiction in its first defence, Rule 19.7 RoP could not ground tacit acceptance, and neither Article 7(2) nor Article 71b(3) covers Turkey (paragraph 57).

Key points for practice

• A fixing feature is construed by reference to its technical function: preventing a given movement, here lifting.
• Logging onto the CMS with the served access code is a formality with no bearing on international jurisdiction.
• Practical point: a defendant domiciled outside the EU may contest jurisdiction for a non-EU state in its first defence without losing the point under Rule 19.7 RoP, though a timely preliminary objection remains the safer course.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 31 and 44

Rules of Procedure

Rules 4.1, 19.1, 19.4, 19.7 and 23

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and Protocol on its Interpretation

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 7(2), 24, 26(1) and 71b

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, CJEU, 11 September 2014, A, C-112/13, CJEU, 13 July 2017, Bayerische Motoren Werke, C-433/16

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.