Paris local division hands NUC victory in slow juicer battle with Hurom

After recent success in Mannheim, kitchen appliance manufacturer Hurom has now suffered a setback against competitors NUC and Warmcook in its UPC dispute at the Paris local division.

Korean kitchen appliance manufacturers Hurom and NUC are embroiled in a battle over slow juicers that both companies sell worldwide. Hurom sued its competitor at the UPC over two different patents. While the dispute at the Mannheim local division concerns EP 2 028 981, the patent-in-suit at the Paris local division is EP 3 155 936. Both relate to a juice extractor.

In March, the Mannheim division found that NUC and its European distribution partner Warmcook had infringed EP 981. The court barred the defendants from distributing their Auto 10 slow juicer in Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, and the Netherlands (case IDs: UPC_CFI_159/2024 and UPC_CFI_162/2024). An appeal is pending.

Paris rules differently

Now the Paris local division has come to a different conclusion regarding Hurom’s EP 936 than the Mannheim division did for EP 981. The dispute in Paris focuses on different NUC products than in Mannheim. Instead of the Auto 10 Slow Juicer, Hurom claims that five other juicer models from NUC infringe its EP 936. However, the Paris panel found the patent-in-suit invalid.

Presiding judge Camille Lignières, legally qualified judges Carine Gillet and Pierluigi Perrotti, as well as technically qualified judge Jeroen Meewisse, also ruled that several juicers marketed by NUC under the brand name Kuvings did not infringe Hurom’s patent (case ID: UPC_CFI_163/2024). Thus, NUC can continue to sell these products in the Netherlands, France, Germany, and Italy, where EP 936 was previously valid.

After Hurom lodged the infringement action in Paris, NUC and Warmcook filed a counterclaim for revocation, arguing that the patent was invalid due to added matter and lack of inventive step.

Hurom rejected these arguments and filed an application and auxiliary request to amend the patent. The defendants argued that this was inadmissible, as it did not fulfil the requirements of Rule 30.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure.

No inventive step

While the Paris local division ruled that Hurom’s application to amend the patent was admissible, they found the auxiliary request lacked inventive step, thus invalidating the patent and rejecting the infringement claim.

NUC also challenged Hurom’s right to the patent, since the company is not the filing party at the EPO. However, the UPC judges did not address the question regarding the transfer of the patent to Hurom as they regarded this as a subsidiary matter, only important if the patent was found to be valid.

Hurom and NUC are fighting over their appliances and market share in many countries, including Asia and the US. The UPC case is their first European encounter in the courtroom.