Key takeaways
Admissibility of patent amendments (R. 30.1 RoP)
Review is limited to whether the patentee filed an explanation on Art. 84 and 123(2),(3) EPC compliance — not whether that explanation is convincing. Convincingness is a merits question, decided at the validity stage.
Claim construction after amendment
The unamended parts of the description remain a valid explanatory aid for interpreting amended claims.
UPC jurisdiction over Poland
Confirmed under Art. 31 UPCA, even though Polish courts retain exclusive jurisdiction over the validity of the Polish patent part (Art. 24(4). Brussels Ia; CJEU BSH v Electrolux, C-339/22)
Poland infringement claim – Burden of proof for extraterritorial infringement
The party alleging infringement outside UPCA Contracting Member States (here, Poland) must prove that the alleged acts constitute infringement under the applicable national law, only website accessibility or generic sales data is insufficient. HUROM failed to prove that the alleged acts (website accessibility, Amazon delivery options) qualify as infringement under Polish law.
Division
Court of Appeal Luxembourg
UPC number
UPC_CoA_678/2025
Type of proceedings
Appeal proceedings against revocation
Parties
Appellant: Hurom Co., Ltd.
Respondents: NUC Electronics Co., Ltd., NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
Patent(s)
EP 3 155 936
Jurisdictions
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland (extraterritorial infringement)
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 30.1 RoP, Art. 84 and 123(2) EPC
