UPC_CFI_163/2024 – Decision of 23 May 2025
The Paris Local Division of the UPC ruled on an infringement action brought by Hurom Co., Ltd. concerning EP 3 155 936 B1, a European patent directed to a juice squeezing module for a juicer. The Court upheld the admissibility of Hurom’s application to unconditionally amend the patent but ultimately revoked both the amended main and auxiliary requests for lack of inventive step. The Court also addressed the admissibility of claims concerning infringement acts in Poland and confirmed the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction under Art. 34 UPCA.
Hurom filed an application to amend the patent by combining granted claims and further detailing the brush rotating mechanism. The defendants objected under Art. 123(2) EPC, arguing the amended claims resulted in unallowable intermediate generalisations, particularly regarding features derived from specific embodiments.
The Court rejected these objections. It held that the skilled person would not consider the cited features inextricably linked and would directly and unambiguously derive the amended subject-matter from the application as filed. The added matter challenge failed.
Despite surviving the added matter test, the Court found the amended claims lacked inventive step over a combination of two prior art documents: CN202365584U (D1) and KR20130016748A (D2). The core of the Court’s reasoning was as follows:
D1 disclosed all but two of the claimed features: the brush rotating means cover (features 1.6.2 and 1.6.3). The technical contribution of these features was limited to shielding and supporting the gear mechanism. D2 disclosed a structurally similar cover with the same function. The Court found no technical prejudice or unexpected effect that would dissuade the skilled person from combining these teachings. Therefore, both the main and auxiliary requests were held to lack inventive step.
The Court clarified the distinction between jurisdiction (Articles 31–33 UPCA) and the territorial scope of decisions (Art. 34 UPCA). It held that objections based on Art. 34 UPCA are not preliminary objections under Rule 19 RoP and are therefore admissible even if raised later in the proceedings.
On the merits, the Court confirmed that the UPC has jurisdiction over such claims in line with the CJEU’s decision in BSH v. Electrolux and previous UPC rulings (e.g. UPC_CFI_355/2023, UPC_CFI_702/2024, UPC_CFI_792/2024). However, the infringement claim failed due to a lack of evidence: Hurom did not provide specific facts linking the alleged infringing acts to the Polish market.
The Court revoked the Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of the patent under Art. 138(1)(a) EPC and Art. 65(2) UPCA. It dismissed all infringement claims, including those concerning Poland, and ordered Hurom to bear the costs of the proceedings. The defendants’ request for an interim award on legal costs was refused due to insufficient substantiation.
