NUC and Preu Bohlig overturn slow juicer ruling on appeal

In March last year the Mannheim local division ruled that NUC and its European distribution partner Warmcook infringed EP 2 028 981 relating to a juice extractor. Subsequently, they were barred from distributing the Auto 10 slow juicer in Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, and the Netherlands.

As to the question, whether NUC and Warmcook should pay damages in countries outside the UPC such as Poland, Spain, Turkey and the UK, the judges in Mannheim decided to separate this question from ongoing proceedings. The local division preferred to await the CJEU’s decision in the BSH Hausgeräte vs Electrolux referral, which had not been decided at the time of the oral hearing. The CJEU published its decision on 25 February 2025, reinstating the European cross-border injunction.

In October the local division Mannheim then ruled that while the European subsidiary of NUC and its distributor Warmcook infringed the patent, the Korean mother company did not. The judges held that the former were liable to damages from infringement in Poland, Spain and the UK. However, this did not apply to Turkey (case IDs: UPC_CFI_159/2024 and UPC_CFI_162/2024).

Turkey not included

NUC and Warmcook appealed the decision regarding infringement, while Hurom appealed the ruling regarding the court’s jurisdiction in Turkey.

Late last week, the Court of Appeal overturned the first-instance decision. The judges panel around presiding judge Klaus Grabinski held that NUC’s Auto 10 juicer does not infringe Hurom’s EP 981. With this decision, Hurom’s separate appeal on jurisdiction regarding Turkey was also dismissed (case IDs: UPC_CoA_409/2025, UPC_CoA_410/2025 and UPC_CoA_420/2025).

The patent owner sued its competitor at the local divisions in Mannheim and Paris over two different patents. Both relate to a juice extractor. However, the dispute in Paris focuses on different NUC products than the case in Mannheim.

In May last year, the Paris local division dismissed Hurom’s infringement claim over EP 3 155 936, finding the patent-in-suit invalid. Hurom filed an appeal, which the court will hear on Thursday.

Beginning to end

As in the first instance, Hurom relied on Hoyng ROKH Monegier in the appeal. Klaus Haft and Sebastian Kratzer led the case at the Court of Appeal, assisted by Sabine Agé, who is also in charge of the Paris case. Hurom did not engage patent attorneys in the proceedings.

NUC and Warmcook instructed a team of lawyers from Preu Bohlig partners Christian Kau and Martin Momtschilow led the case together with Axel Oldekop. Patent attorney and partner Olaf Isfort from Schneiders & Berendt advised on technical questions.

In Paris, NUC and Warmcook have retained a team from Beau de Loménie led by partner Didier Intès.