HUROM v. NUC/WARMCOOK - UPC Court of Appeal, 27 March 2026

HUROM v. NUC/WARMCOOK: UPC_CoA_409/2025, 410/2025, 420/2025 – decision of 27 March 2026

In this decision, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court clarifies that functional claim features must not be construed in isolation from the technical operation disclosed in the patent description – and on this basis sets aside, in its entirety, a first-instance infringement judgment of the Mannheim Local Division. The decision also addresses a procedural question of practical relevance: merely logging into the Case Management System does not constitute entering an appearance within the meaning of the Brussels Ia Regulation, which takes precedence over the preclusion rule in R. 19.7 RoP. The case thus provides useful guidance on both claim construction and international jurisdiction at the UPC.

Korean juicer manufacturer HUROM brought proceedings for infringement of European patent EP 2 028 981 (a vertically oriented juice extractor) against the NUC group of companies (NUC Korea and its German subsidiary NUC Europe) and French distributor WARMCOOK, who marketed the “AUTO10” slow juicer across several European countries. In separate proceedings, HUROM also sought damages against NUC Korea for infringing acts in Turkey.

Claim construction – functional features and the role of the description

The Court of Appeal confirms and develops the principles established in NanoString v. 10x Genomics (UPC_CoA_335/2023). The description and drawings must not only be used to resolve ambiguities but must always be used as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim (para. 21 of the present decision).

Of interest is how the Court of Appeal applies this principle here: it derives from the function stated in the claim (to press, grind and extract juice) an implicit technical requirement – vertical fixation – that is not expressly mentioned in the claim wording. Functional claim features are thus not construed at the UPC in isolation based on their wording, but in conjunction with the technical operation disclosed in the description. In practice, this means the description can influence the scope of protection in both directions – broadening it where it supports a wide understanding, but also narrowing it where it discloses technical prerequisites that the skilled person would consider necessary.

Relationship between independent and dependent claims

The decision also contains a useful clarification on the relationship between independent and dependent claims. The first-instance court had treated the engagement hooks mentioned in dependent claims 6 and 12 as an additional feature going beyond claim 1. The Court of Appeal corrects this: the dependent claims specify the means of achieving the fixation, not the fixation itself, which is already inherent in the independent claim. This distinction is likely to be relevant in future cases involving functional features with associated dependent claims.

Appellate review of first-instance decisions

The case shows that the Court of Appeal is prepared to fully revise first-instance claim construction – with the consequence that an infringement judgment, together with all its remedies, is set aside. For litigants, this underscores the importance of the appellate level at the UPC and the need to present, already at first instance, an interpretation that can withstand scrutiny on appeal.

Interplay between Brussels Ia Regulation and the RoP

The decision also addresses the interplay between the preclusion rule in R. 19.7 RoP and Art. 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation regarding international jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over infringing acts in Turkey. NUC Korea had not filed a timely Preliminary Objection pursuant to R. 19 RoP, but had challenged jurisdiction in its Statement of Defence – which, in the Court’s view, sufficed to preclude a finding of entering an appearance. The Court set out three headnotes:

First, merely logging into the CMS does not constitute entering an appearance – it is a purely technical access step, not a deliberate procedural act.
Second, an appearance within the meaning of Art. 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation is only entered when the defendant lodges its first statement – a Preliminary Objection or the Statement of Defence. Where the defendant challenges jurisdiction in that first statement, there is precisely no entering of an appearance.
Third, Art. 26 Brussels Ia Regulation prevails over the preclusion rule in R. 19.7 RoP: even without a timely Preliminary Objection, international jurisdiction may be challenged in the Statement of Defence without the missed deadline being treated as entering an appearance.

Art. 26 Brussels Ia Regulation does not preclude the establishment of jurisdiction through entering an appearance – on the contrary, the provision expressly contemplates this. What the decision clarifies, however, is from what point such an appearance can arise at all, and that R. 19.7 RoP cannot displace this concept, which must be interpreted autonomously under EU law. The Court distinguishes between the technical act of accessing the system (logging into the CMS) and a deliberate procedural step (lodging the first statement), establishing the primacy of the Brussels Ia Regulation over the RoP. This gives defendants domiciled in third states assurance that a missed Preliminary Objection does not automatically establish international jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

For claimants:

A first-instance court’s construction of individual claim features provides no guarantee of stability on appeal – the Court of Appeal conducts its own comprehensive interpretation.
When assessing infringement under functional claim features, particular care must be taken to verify that the attacked embodiment fulfils the entire claimed function, including technical requirements derived from the description.
For actions against third-state defendants, jurisdiction should be secured early and independently of R. 19.7 RoP.

For defendants:

The description and disclosed embodiments can significantly influence claim construction – including in the defendant’s favour, by narrowing the scope of protection.
A challenge to international jurisdiction remains available in the Statement of Defence even without a prior Preliminary Objection, without this constituting entering an appearance.
Merely logging into the CMS does not establish jurisdiction – nevertheless, jurisdictional objections should be raised as early and as unambiguously as possible.