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 \u2013 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.\u00a019.7 RoP. The case thus provides useful guidance on both claim construction and international jurisdiction at the UPC.<\/p>\n
Korean juicer manufacturer HUROM brought proceedings for infringement of European patent EP\u00a02\u00a0028\u00a0981 (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 \u201cAUTO10\u201d slow juicer across several European countries. In separate proceedings, HUROM also sought damages against NUC Korea for infringing acts in Turkey.<\/p>\n
The Court of Appeal confirms and develops the principles established in NanoString v. 10x Genomics<\/em> (UPC_CoA_335\/2023). The description and drawings must not only be used to resolve ambiguities but must always<\/em> be used as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim (para.\u00a021 of the present decision).<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 vertical fixation \u2013 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 \u2013 broadening it where it supports a wide understanding, but also narrowing it where it discloses technical prerequisites that the skilled person would consider necessary.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> feature going beyond claim\u00a01. The Court of Appeal corrects this: the dependent claims specify the means<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n The case shows that the Court of Appeal is prepared to fully revise first-instance claim construction \u2013 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.<\/p>\n The decision also addresses the interplay between the preclusion rule in R.\u00a019.7 RoP and Art.\u00a026(1) Brussels Ia Regulation regarding international jurisdiction.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a019 RoP, but had challenged jurisdiction in its Statement of Defence \u2013 which, in the Court\u2019s view, sufficed to preclude a finding of entering an appearance. The Court set out three headnotes:<\/p>\n Art.\u00a026 Brussels Ia Regulation does not preclude the establishment of jurisdiction through entering an appearance \u2013 on the contrary, the provision expressly contemplates this. What the decision clarifies, however, is from what point<\/em> such an appearance can arise at all, and that R.\u00a019.7 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" HUROM v. NUC\/WARMCOOK: UPC_CoA_409\/2025, 410\/2025, 420\/2025 \u2013 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…<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":42398,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[64],"tags":[],"legal_areas":[218],"class_list":["post-46038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-upc-update-en","legal_areas-patent-litigation"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nRelationship between independent and dependent claims<\/h3>\n
Appellate review of first-instance decisions<\/h3>\n
Interplay between Brussels Ia Regulation and the RoP<\/h3>\n
\n
Key takeaways<\/h3>\n
For claimants:<\/h4>\n
\n
For defendants:<\/h4>\n
\n