Mannheim local division favours practical approach for calculating damages

The Korean kitchen appliance manufacturers Hurom and NUC have taken their global patent dispute to the UPC. The case concerns slow juicers that both companies sell worldwide. Hurom sued its competitor at the local divisions in Mannheim and Paris over two different patents.

The Mannheim division has now found NUC and its European distribution partner have infringed EP 2 028 981 relating to a juice extractor.

NUC and Warmcook are now barred 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). Given the intensity of their dispute with Hurom, an appeal seems likely.

Which law applies?

As is standard in such cases, the two companies must now provide information about their profits and render their accounts. The Mannheim judges, led by presiding judge Peter Tochtermann, took this opportunity to clarify which law applies in such circumstances.

NUC argued that since the Auto 10 model was not sold in Europe until autumn 2023 – after the UPC came into force – UPC law should apply. However, the parallel proceedings in Paris concern other models sold before the UPC’s establishment. This raised the question of whether the respective laws of states where a European patent is validated and infringed should also apply.

In their two judgments, the Mannheim panel – comprising Tochtermann, Andreas Böttcher and Pierluigi Perotti – did not specify from when NUC and Warmcook owe damages. Judges will determine this once the companies have provided information.

However, the judges used this case to establish principles for determining applicable law, particularly in situations where infringement began before the UPC’s establishment and continued after 1 June 2023. Academics have debated this extensively, with some arguing that national law should always apply to European bundle patents. The Mannheim judges acknowledged this position but ruled that UPC law should apply initially in these cases. However, if a party believes national law would be more favourable, they may invoke it with proper substantiation.

For other scenarios, the judges were unequivocal. If infringement occurred exclusively before the UPC’s establishment, national law applies to damages calculations. If it began after the UPC’s launch, only UPC law applies.

In a separate case between Fives and Reel, the UPC Court of Appeal has declared itself competent to rule on damages claims, even where a national court has ruled on infringement.

Pragmatic approch

The judges also took a pragmatic stance regarding whether NUC and Warmcook should pay damages in countries such as Poland, Spain, Turkey and the UK, separating this question from ongoing proceedings. The judges preferred to await the CJEU’s decision in the BSH Hausgeräte vs Electrolux referral. The CJEU published its decision on 25 February 2025, reinstating the European cross-border injunction.

The oral hearing in the slow juicer case had already taken place in late January. Hurom, NUC and Warmcook will meet again in Paris on 4 April for the second case concerning EP 3 155 936 (case ID: UPC_CFI_163/2024).

First battle in Europe

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.

Hurom relies on Hoyng ROKH Monegier in both proceedings. In Paris, Sabine Agé leads the team, while Klaus Haft and Sebastian Kratzer secured the Mannheim judgment. Agé also works on the Mannheim case. Hurom did not engage patent attorneys in the proceedings.

NUC and Warmcook opted for a combined team of lawyers from Preu Bohlig, as well as patent attorney and partner Olaf Isfort from Schneiders & Berendt for the Mannheim proceedings. Preu Bohlig partners Christian Kau and Martin Momtschilow led the case. In Paris, NUC and Warmcook have retained a team from Beau de Loménie led by partner Didier Intès.