Hurom v. NUC UPC-CFI_162/2024
LD Mannheim Decision of 2 October 20251
Hurom Co., Ltd., a Korean company, asserted its patent EP 2028981 relating to juice extractors against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, also a Korean company, at the LD Mannheim. Infringement was alleged not only in respect of the UPC countries France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Denmark, and Romania, but also in respect of the non-UPC EU countries Poland and Spain, and the non-UPC, non-EU countries Turkey and the United Kingdom.
In a first decision of 11 March 2025,2 the LD Mannheim found the patent infringed and ordered relief including an injunction in respect of Germany, Denmark, France, Italy and The Netherlands.
In respect of Turkey, the court declined jurisdiction, holding that the claimant did not allege sufficient facts which, if substantiated, would fulfil the requirements of Article 7(2) Brussels Ia Reg even if acts committed within the UPC territory that result in an infringement in Turkey are covered by the provision.
In respect of the remaining territories, in a further short decision of 11 March 2025,3 the LD Mannheim ordered the claimant’s requests based on the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom to be separated, to be dealt with in one separate proceeding. This decision is that separated judgment.
According to the LD Mannheim, the CJEU decision C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte), which confirmed that a court can rule on infringement in respect of a third state or other EU Member state even if the validity of the patent is challenged, was not limited in its applicability to situations where the court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 4(1) Brussels Ia Reg (place of defendant). Rather, the LD Mannheim considered that the reasoning was applicable even in the case of jurisdiction under Article 7(2) (place where the harmful event occurred).
Therefore, the LD Mannheim considered that it did have jurisdiction to consider infringement in respect of Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom.
This is a significant extension of the jurisdiction that the UPC claims for itself. Previous decisions asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction4 have been in relation to Article 4(1) Brussels Ia Reg, where the defendant was located in UPC territory, and specifically the country of the local division of the UPC concerned. According to this latest ruling, such extraterritorial jurisdiction could also be asserted in respect of a non-EU defendant (in this case, a Korean company). The decision appears surprising as C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) explicitly considers Article 4(1) jurisdiction, and does not mention Article 7(2) jurisdiction.
However, having accepted jurisdiction, the LD Mannheim declined to grant the requested injunctions, because it found that the claimant had not actually proved infringement by the defendant in any of the three countries concerned. While the defendant’s German subsidiary and French distributor may have offered or shipped products to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, these actions were not attributable to the Korean company.
Accordingly, the separated action in respect of Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom was dismissed.
[1] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/159628
[2] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/70883
[3] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/70861
[4] Most notably Fujifilm v Kodak discussed here https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/the_upc_expands_its_jurisdiction_limits_by_granting_its_first_uk_injunction/