UPC CFI 159/2024 – Hurom Co., Ltd. v NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK

Expert Commentary

Full Decision Text

1 Local Division Mannheim UPC CFI 159/2024 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division Mannheim delivered on 2 October 2025 concerning EP 2 028 981 CLAIMANT Hurom Co., Ltd. - 80-60, Golden root-ro - 62184 - Juchon-myeon, Gimhae-si, Gyeongsangnam-do - KR Represented by Klaus Haft DEFENDANTS 1) NUC Electronics Europe GmbH - Schwalbacher Strasse 76 - 65760 - Eschborn - DE Represented by Christian Kau 2) WARMCOOK - 73 boulevard Gay Lussac - 13014 - Marseille - FR Represented by Christian Kau 2 PATENT AT ISSUE: European Patent No EP 2 028 981 PANEL/DEVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Mannheim DECIDING JUDGES: This decision is delivered by the presiding judge Tochtermann, the legally qualified judge Böttcher as judge-rapporteur and the legally qualified judge Perrotti. LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Patent infringement action DATE OF THE ORAL HEARING: 28 January 2025 and 4 September 2025 SUMMARY OF THE FACTS: 1. The Claimant is suing the Defendants for the alleged infringement of the EP 2 028 981 B1 which relates to a juice extractor (hereinafter: the patent-in-suit). The Claimant, a manu- facturer of juicers and blenders, is the registered proprietor of the national part of the pa- tent in inter alia Poland, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom (cf. exhibit P 13). The pa- tent-in-suit was originally filed by and granted to the inventor Mr. Kim, Young-Ki and is in force in the aforementioned countries. Claim 1 of the patent-in-suit reads as follows in the language of the patent: A juice extractor comprising: a cover (100) having an inlet port formed on one side of an upper part thereof and a rotary shaft hole (120) formed in the center of an inner part thereof; a housing (500) installed on a lower part of the cover, and having a guide jaw formed on a bottom of the housing, a draff outlet port (570) and a juice outlet port (560) formed apart from each other on a lower end part of the housing, a waterproof cylinder having a through hole and formed in the center of the lower end part of the housing, and a pressure discharge passage formed around a lower part of the waterproof cylinder; a screw (200) having an upper rotary shaft formed on an upper part of the screw (200) to be rotatably inserted into the rotary shaft hole, a plurality of screw spirals formed on an outer surface of the screw, an inner ring formed at a lower end of the screw to project downward and having a plurality of screw gears rotatably inserted into the pressure discharge passage, a lower space formed inside the inner ring to receive the waterproof cylinder therein, and a lower rotary shaft formed in the center of a lower part of the screw and a polygonal shaft hole formed thereon; a mesh drum insertable into the guide jaw of the housing, the mesh drum (300) having a mesh structure formed on an outer wall of the mesh drum (300) to discharge juice to the juice outlet port, and a plurality of wall blades longitudinally formed on an inner surface of the mesh drum; 3 a rotary brush installed (400) between the housing and the mesh drum (300) to be rotated, and having a brush holder in which a brush for continuously sweeping the mesh drum and the housing is installed; and a drive unit having (600) a polygonal shaft that is inserted into the polygonal shaft hole through the through hole of the waterproof cylinder, and rotating the screw at (200) a low speed; wherein the housing accommodating the screw is longitudinally fixed to an upper side of the drive unit (600) so as to press, grind and extract juice from materials put into the inlet port and to discharge the draff. 2. To Claimant’s mind, slow juicers marketed by the Defendants under the name “AUTO10” (“contested embodiment”) are falling within the scope of the patent-in-suit. 3. Defendant 1, a company incorporated under German law, is the German subsidiary of NUC Electronics Co., Ltd., a Korean manufacturer of kitchen equipment under the brand “Kuvings” and the parent company of the NUC group. NUC Electronics Co., Ltd., is the de- fendant in a parallel infringement proceeding before the Local Division Mannheim (UPC CFI 162/2024) regarding the same patent-in-suit and the same contested embodi- ment. Defendant 1 is responsible for the German website “kuvings.de” containing a web shop (exhibit P5/5a) and for the German amazon web shop distributing “Kuvings”-products as “Kuving Germany” and “Kuvings EU” (exhibit P7). Defendant 2, a company incorporated under French law, is an importer and French distributor of various kitchen and cooking- related equipment, among them NUC juicers and the contested embodiment. Defendant 2 is responsible for the French web sites “warmcook.com” (including a web shop) and “kuvings.fr” (exhibits P9/9a, P11/11a) and for the French amazon web shop “Warmcook - Kuvings”. 4. Claimant submitted the following picture of the contested embodiment from the websites of Defendant 1: 4 5. In addition, Claimant, inter alia, filed the following photographs (exhibit P18, arrows added by the Claimant) showing - the drum section (labeled “Pressbehälter” in the previous picture), in the upper left photograph together with the “AUTO hopper” on top (labeled “Behälter” and “Deckel” in the previous picture): 5 - and the drive unit (labeled “Motorsockel” in the picture of the previous marginal num- ber, circles added by Claimant): 6 6. By order of 11 March 2025, the panel separated the proceedings with regard to Poland, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom because the decision of the ECJ in re C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) had not been delivered until the end of the oral hearing but only thereafter on 25 February 2025. This separated proceeding is the subject-matter of the decision at hand, whereas the panel ruled on the other part of the action in its decision of 11 March 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “decision of 11 March 2025”). According to this decision, other national parts of the patent-in-suit were found infringed and the infringement action therefore was largely successful. By order of 1 April 2025, the parties were given the op- portunity to comment on the separated part at hand following the ECJ’s decision in re BSH Hausgeräte (cf. workflow ORD 15945/2025). REQUESTS OF THE PARTIES 7. For the sake of clarity the requests submitted are once again reflected hereinafter in their entirety, highlighting in yellow the parts of interest to the separated proceedings regarding Poland, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The Claimant requests (cf. permitted amended request from the brief of 21 January 2025, workflow to order ORD 2996/2025): A. As main request, I. to hold that the Claimant has demonstrated that the Defendants infringe the claims No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the European patent No. EP 2 028 981; II. to order the Defendants to refrain from 7 importing, exporting in the EU territory, offering, placing on the market, using a juicer within Germany, Denmark, France, Italy and The Netherlands or storing it for those purposes, that has the following features 1. A juice extractor comprising: a cover (100) having an inlet port formed on one side of an upper part thereof and a rotary shaft hole (120) formed in the center of an inner part thereof; a housing (500) installed on a lower part of the cover, and having a guide jaw formed on a bottom of the housing, a draff outlet port (570) and a juice outlet port (560) formed apart from each other on a lower end part of the housing, a waterproof cylinder having a through hole and formed in the center of the lower end part of the housing, and a pressure discharge passage formed around a lower part of the waterproof cylinder; a screw (200) having an upper rotary shaft formed on an upper part of the screw (200) to be rotatably inserted into the rotary shaft hole, a plurality of screw spi- rals formed on an outer surface of the screw, an inner ring formed at a lower end of the screw to project downward and having a plurality of screw gears ro- tatably inserted into the pressure discharge passage, a lower space formed in- side the inner ring to receive the waterproof cylinder therein, and a lower rotary shaft formed in the center of a lower part of the screw and a polygonal shaft hole formed thereon; a mesh drum insertable into the guide jaw of the housing, the mesh drum (300) having a mesh structure formed on an outer wall of the mesh drum (300) to discharge juice to the juice outlet port, and a plurality of wall blades longitudi- nally formed on an inner surface of the mesh drum; a rotary brush installed (400) between the housing and the mesh drum (300) to be rotated, and having a brush holder in which a brush for continuously sweeping the mesh drum and the hous- ing is installed; and a drive unit having (600) a polygonal shaft that is inserted into the polygonal shaft hole through the through hole of the waterproof cylinder, and rotating the screw at (200) a low speed; wherein the housing accommodating the screw is longitudinally fixed to an up- per side of the drive unit (600) so as to press, grind and extract juice from mate- rials put into the inlet port and to discharge the draff. - direct infringement of claim 1 EP 2 028 981 B1 - in particular, 2. The juice extractor of claim 1, wherein the pressure discharge passage of the housing is connected to the juice outlet port (560) - direct infringement of claim 2 EP 2 028 981 B1 - 8 and/or, 3. The juice extractor of claim 1, further comprising: a discharge jaw formed at an end of a lower part of the spirals of the screw (200) by internally cutting a lower border of the screw; a bottom ring formed at an end of a lower part of the mesh drum (300), and having an inner ring insertion hole formed thereon to accommodate the inner ring; a discharge slant surface formed on an upper surface of the bottom ring, the discharge slant surface being in the form of a circular arc of which the depth is increased in a rotating direction of the screw; a mesh drum discharge hole connected to an end of the discharge slant surface to discharge the draff out of the mesh drum (300) and a housing discharge hole formed on one side of the bottom of the housing and connected to the mesh drum discharge hole and the draff outlet port (570); wherein the discharge jaw discharges the draff to the draff outlet port (570) through the housing discharge hole by pushing the draff to the mesh drum discharge (360) hole as the discharge jaw is rotated along the discharge slant surface (350). - direct infringement of claim 3 EP 2 028 981 B1 - and/or 4. The juice extractor of claim 3, wherein a circular projection is formed at an edge of an inner side of the bottom ring (340), circular groove is formed on an outer side of the circular projection, an outer ring (260) is formed on an outer periphery of the inner ring (250) to project downward, and a circular projection insertion hole is formed between the inner ring (250) and the outer ring (260); wherein the outer ring is rotatably inserted into the circular groove to extend a contact area with the draff being guided by the discharge jaw (225), and the circular projection is inserted into the circular projection insertion hole to minimize an inflow of the draff to the pres- sure discharge passage. - direct infringement of claim 4 EP 2 028 981 B1 - 5. The juice extractor of claim 1, wherein a plurality of engagement jaws are formed on a border of a lower end part of the cover (100), a plurality of engagement projections are formed on an outer periphery of an upper end of the housing (500), and engagement hooks are formed on the drive unit; wherein the housing (500) that is secured to the cover (100) by the engagement of the engagement jaws with the engagement projections is detachably secured to the drive unit by the engagement hooks. - direct infringement of claim 6 EP 2 028 981 B1 - 6. The juice extractor of claim 1, wherein the brush (400) is composed of a net brush (410) attached to an inner surface of the brush holder (430) to continuously sweep the outer wall of the 9 mesh drum (300), and a housing brush attached to an outer surface of the brush holder to continuously sweep the inner wall of the housing (500). - direct infringement of claim 7 EP 2 028 981 B1 - 7. The juice extractor of claim 1, wherein a brush gear (440) is mounted on a lower part of the brush holder (430), and an intermediate gear is rotatably mounted on the lower surface of the hous- ing (500) to be engaged with the brush gear (440); wherein the intermediate gear, which is engaged with the screw gear, rotates the brush gear. - direct infringement of claim 8 EP 2 028 981 B1 - 8. The juice extractor of claim 1, wherein a slant surface is formed on a lower end surface of the inlet port of the cover (100) in the rotating direction of the screw (300). - direct infringement of claim 9 EP 2 028 981 B1 - III. to order, that in the event of any violation of the injunction in accordance with no. II above, the Defendants shall pay severally to the Court a penalty sum of at least EUR 2,000 per infringing unit and/or a penalty sum of at least EUR 10,000 for each day of violation of this injunction. B. As a subsidiary request I. to hold that the claimant has demonstrated that the contested “AUTO 10” repro- duces OR implements claims No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of European patent No. 2 028 981; II to order the defendants to refrain from: importing, exporting in the EU territory, offering, placing on the market, using the contested “Auto10” within the territory of Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, The Netherlands or storing it for those purposes, that has the following features 1. A juice extractor comprising: a cover (100) having an inlet port formed on one side of an upper part thereof and a rotary shaft hole (120) formed in the center of an inner part thereof; a housing (500) installed on a lower part of the cover, and having a guide jaw formed on a bottom of the housing, a draff outlet port (570) and a juice outlet port (560) formed apart from each other on a lower end part of the housing, a waterproof cylinder having a through hole and formed in the center of the lower end part of the housing, and a pressure discharge passage formed around a lower part of the waterproof cylinder; a screw (200) having an upper rotary shaft formed on an upper part of the screw (200) to be rotatably inserted into the rotary shaft hole, a plurality of screw spi- rals formed on an outer surface of the screw, an inner ring formed at a lower 10 end of the screw to project downward and having a plurality of screw gears ro- tatably inserted into the pressure discharge passage, a lower space formed in- side the inner ring to receive the waterproof cylinder therein, and a lower rotary shaft formed in the center of a lower part of the screw and a polygonal shaft hole formed thereon; a mesh drum insertable into the guide jaw of the housing, the mesh drum (300) having a mesh structure formed on an outer wall of the mesh drum (300) to discharge juice to the juice outlet port, and a plurality of wall blades longitudi- nally formed on an inner surface of the mesh drum; a rotary brush installed (400) between the housing and the mesh drum (300) to be rotated, and having a brush holder in which a brush for continuously sweeping the mesh drum and the hous- ing is installed; and a drive unit having (600) a polygonal shaft that is inserted into the polygonal shaft hole through the through hole of the waterproof cylinder, and rotating the screw at (200) a low speed; wherein the housing accommodating the screw is longitudinally fixed to an up- per side of the drive unit (600) so as to press, grind and extract juice from mate- rials put into the inlet port and to discharge the draff. - direct infringement of claim 1 EP 2 028 981 B1 - in particular, 2. The juice extractor of claim 1, wherein the pressure discharge passage of the housing is connected to the juice outlet port (560) - direct infringement of claim 2 EP 2 028 981 B1 - and/or, 3. The juice extractor of claim 1, further comprising: a discharge jaw formed at an end of a lower part of the spirals of the screw (200) by internally cutting a lower border of the screw; a bottom ring formed at an end of a lower part of the mesh drum (300), and having an inner ring insertion hole formed thereon to accommodate the inner ring; a discharge slant surface formed on an upper surface of the bottom ring, the discharge slant surface being in the form of a circular arc of which the depth is increased in a rotating direction of the screw; a mesh drum discharge hole connected to an end of the discharge slant surface to discharge the draff out of the mesh drum (300) and a housing discharge hole formed on one side of the bottom of the housing and connected to the mesh drum discharge hole and the draff outlet port (570); wherein the discharge jaw discharges the draff to the draff outlet port (570) through the housing discharge hole by pushing the draff to the mesh drum discharge (360) hole as the discharge jaw is rotated along the discharge slant surface (350). 11 - direct infringement of claim 3 EP 2 028 981 B1 - and/or 4. The juice extractor of claim 3, wherein a circular projection is formed at an edge of an inner side of the bottom ring (340), circular groove is formed on an outer side of the circular projection, an outer ring (260) is formed on an outer periphery of the inner ring (250) to project downward, and a circular projection insertion hole is formed between the inner ring (250) and the outer ring (260); wherein the outer ring is rotatably inserted into the circular groove to extend a contact area with the draff being guided by the discharge jaw (225), and the circular projection is inserted into the circular projection insertion hole to minimize an inflow of the draff to the pres- sure discharge passage. - direct infringement of claim 4 EP 2 028 981 B1 - 5. The juice extractor of claim 1, wherein a plurality of engagement jaws are formed on a border of a lower end part of the cover (100), a plurality of engagement projections are formed on an outer periphery of an upper end of the housing (500), and engagement hooks are formed on the drive unit; wherein the housing (500) that is secured to the cover (100) by the engagement of the engagement jaws with the engagement projections is detachably secured to the drive unit by the engagement hooks. - direct infringement of claim 6 EP 2 028 981 B1 - 6. The juice extractor of claim 1, wherein the brush (400) is composed of a net brush (410) attached to an inner surface of the brush holder (430) to continuously sweep the outer wall of the mesh drum (300), and a housing brush attached to an outer surface of the brush holder to continuously sweep the inner wall of the housing (500). - direct infringement of claim 7 EP 2 028 981 B1 - 7. The juice extractor of claim 1, wherein a brush gear (440) is mounted on a lower part of the brush holder (430), and an intermediate gear is rotatably mounted on the lower surface of the hous- ing (500) to be engaged with the brush gear (440); wherein the intermediate gear, which is engaged with the screw gear, rotates the brush gear. - direct infringement of claim 8 EP 2 028 981 B1 - 8. The juice extractor of claim 1, wherein a slant surface is formed on a lower end surface of the inlet port of the cover (100) in the rotating direction of the screw (300). - direct infringement of claim 9 EP 2 028 981 B1 - 12 III. to order, that in the event of any violation of the injunction in accordance with no. II above, the Defendants shall pay severally to the Court a penalty sum of at least EUR 2,000 per infringing unit and/or a penalty sum of at least EUR 10,000 for each day of violation of this injunction. C. As further requests, I. to hold that the Defendants shall pay damages to the claimant compensating all losses caused by the infringing acts of EP 2 028 981 in - France since 2 April 2019 and as long as EP 2 028 981 B1 is in force; - Germany since 14 April 2015 and as long as EP 2 028 981 B1 is in force - Italy, The Netherlands, Denmark, Romania, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom, Tur- key since 23 September 2015 and as long as EP 2 028 981 B1 is in force II. to order the Defendants to pay to the Claimant EUR 50.000 (fifty thousand euros) in compensation for the moral prejudice suffered; III. to order the Defendants to inform the Claimant to the extent of which they have committed infringing acts referred to under C.I., stating i. the origin and distribution channels; ii. the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained; in particular o manufacturing quantities and times; o the individual deliveries, broken down by delivery quantities, times and prices and the respective product designations as well as the names and ad- dresses of the customers; o the turnover, the gross margin and the contribution margin generated by the Defendants with the sale of these products; o the individual offers, broken down by quantities, times and prices and prod- uct designations as well as the names and addresses of the commercial offer recipients; o the advertising carried out, broken down by advertising media, their circula- tion, distribution period and distribution area, and in the case of Internet ad- vertising, the domain, access figures and placement periods of each cam- paign; o the identity of all third parties involved in the distribution, in particular the names and addresses of the commercial buyers and the sales outlets for which the products were intended; 13 whereby details requiring confidentiality may, at the discretion of the court, be redacted or made available only to certain persons; iii. within twenty-one days of the date of service of the decision, supported by evidence verified by an independent accountant, under a penalty of EUR 10.000 per delay day from the month following the date of service of the judgment to be handed down; IV. to order the Defendants to pay the Claimant interim awards on damages in the amount of EUR 25,000 as provided under Rule 119 of the Rules of Procedure pend- ing the communication of the requested accounting information, the Claimant re- taining the right to bring an action at a later date for the determination of the dam- ages; V. to order the Defendants to destroy at their own expense the products, material and/or implements referred to under A. II. – as a subsidiary request: referred to under B.II. – which are in their possession and/or ownership within Germany, Den- mark, France, Italy, The Netherlands and to provide the Claimant with proper evi- dence certified by an independent bailiff as to how and when the destruction was carried out; VI. to order the Defendants to recall the products referred to under A. II. – as a subsid- iary request: referred to under B.II. – which have been placed on the market from the channels of commerce, with reference to the infringement determined by a court of law (judgement of […] on […]) and with the binding promise to reimburse any fees and to assume any necessary packaging and transport costs as well as cus- toms and storage costs associated with the return and to take back the products, whereby an exhaustive list of all recipients is to be provided to the Claimant; VII. to order the Defendants to definitively remove the products referred to under A.II. – as a subsidiary request: referred to under B.II. – from the channels of commerce, specifically taking the following measures at their own expense: 1. the Defendants shall take all possible and reasonable measures to identify the locations and owners of the products referred to under A.II (as a subsidiary re- quest: referred to under B.II.); 2. to the extent that the Defendants themselves have legal or actual control over the products referred to under A.II. (as a subsidiary request: referred to under B.II.), such measures as are legally permissible and reasonable shall be taken to ensure that such products come into and remain in the Defendants’ immediate possession; 3. to the extent that the Defendants do not have legal or actual control over the products referred to under A. II. (as a subsidiary request: referred to under B.II.), they shall take all legally permissible and reasonable steps to induce the persons holding claims for restitution against the holders of the control of the products to assert such claims and/or to assist such persons in asserting such claims; VIII. to order for each Defendant 14 1. to place on its website, within seven days from the date of service of the decision and for a continuous period of at least two weeks, the following statement (or a statement as the Court deems appropriate), to be displayed in a manner visible directly on the website’s home- or landing page, in a text box separate from the website’s other content having a white background and black letters, set in type- face Arial and having at least 12pt size, and to provide the claimant with evi- dence as to when and how the statement was placed: “On [date of decision], the Unified Patent Court has ruled that NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK infringed European Patent No.2 028 981 held by Hurom Co., Ltd., by selling, and offering for sale Kuvings “AUTO 10”. As a consequence NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK were ordered to terminate all commercial activities related to these products in Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, The Netherlands immediately. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and will be reaching out directly to commercial clients and customers to offer an appropriate solution.” 2. to send to its commercial clients and customers, within seven days from the date of service of the decision, in the national language of the respective client or customer, a letter with the following contents only (or such contents as the Court deems appropriate) and without caption, and to provide the claimant with cop- ies of all letters sent: "NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK have infringed Hurom’s Eu- ropean Patent No.2 028 981 with its products Kuvings AUTO 10. Those prod- ucts may no longer be offered for sale or sold in Germany, Denmark, France, Italy and The Netherlands, either on- or offline. We hereby request you to re- move (images of) these products from your websites, from your shops and from other promotional and sales channels, to cease all sales and offers for sale of these products, and to return to us these products within seven days from the date of this letter. We will refund the purchase price and all costs associated with the return of the products to you." IX. In any case, to order the Defendants to pay the claimant the sum of EUR 56.000 as an interim award on the legal costs and other expenses as provided under Article 69 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement and Rule 118(5), 119 and 150(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 8. The Defendants request I.1. to declare and judge that the Claimant has not demonstrated that the Defendants infringes the claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 of the European patent EP 2 028 981; I.2. Consequently, to dismiss and reject the Claimant's action of April 2, 2024 (ACT 17336/2024) in its entirety. II. In the alternative, it is requested as a subsidiary request to grant the Claimant's action of April 2, 2024 (ACT 17336/2024) on the basis of the auxiliary claim in part B. only, subject to the specification that the claim expressly 15 includes the specific model no. “KHS-2520CE” in addition to the name of the contested product “AUTO10”. III. With regard to the Claimant's further requests (part C.), the following is requested – also in the alternative as a subsidiary request: 1. to limit the claims for damages as follows: a. temporally aa. for acts of infringement in Germany for the period after March 5, 2024; bb. for acts of infringement in Denmark for the period after June 1, 2023; cc. for acts of infringement in France for the period after April 18, 2024; dd. for acts of infringement in Italy for the period after June 1, 2023 and ee. for acts of infringement in the Netherlands for the period after April 18, 2024; b. territorially, to the countries of Germany (for the Defendant 1), and France (for the Defendant 2); and as a subsidiary request to countries that are Contracting Member States; 2. to reduce the non-material damages pursuant to the Claimant’s requests in part C. II., the provisional damages pursuant to part C. IV. and the provisional claim for reimbursement of costs pursuant to part C. IX. to an appropriate amount in accordance with the proven damage suffered by the Claimant; 3. to dismiss the Claimant's claim for information pursuant to request C. III. Insofar as it relates to the production of the infringing items and to the sale/delivery to non- commercial customers, and to reduce the penalty payment further requested in part C. III. iii) to a reasonable rate not exceeding EUR 250 per day of delay, the delay starting only after a period of 30 days after the communication of the Court’s decision pursuant to Rule 118.8 S. 1 RoP; 4. to amend request C. VIII. to the effect that the publication of the decision of the UPC must be made by the Claimant, for which the Defendants must reimburse the costs to a reasonable extent, whereby the claim for reimbursement of costs may not exceed an amount of EUR 1,000.00. IV. In addition, it is requested, to order the Claimant to pay to the Defendants the amount of EUR 45,000 as an interim award on the legal costs incurred. POINTS AT ISSUE 9. The parties dispute about different aspects. 16 JURISDICTION 10. Defendants opine that the UPC has no jurisdiction over national parts of EU member states that have decided against joining the UPC system such as Poland and Spain. Their decision not to transfer judicial sovereignty to the UPC had to be accepted and respected. Assuming jurisdiction also contradicted Art. 34 UPCA which limited the UPC’s jurisdiction to its mem- ber states. Nothing else applied to countries which are even Non-EU member states as Turkey and the United Kingdom and therefore were excluded from participating in the UPC system. These considerations were not affected by the ECJ’s ruling in re BSH Hausgeräte. TERRITORIAL SCOPE OF JURISDICTION 11. The parties dispute about the UPC-internal competence of the Local Division Mannheim to hear the case against Defendant 2 domiciled in France. Claimant refers to Art. 31 UPCA, Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia Reg. and Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA. JURISDICTION OF THE UPC OVER ACTS COMMITTED BEFORE 1 JUNE 2023 12. Defendants reject any jurisdiction of the UPC over infringing acts ending before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. RELEVANCE OF THE OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION 13. Claimant additionally rejects any objections to the jurisdiction by referring to R. 19.7 RoP because such objections should have been addressed in a preliminary objection under R. 19 RoP. CLAIMANT’S ENTITLEMENT TO THE PATENT-IN-SUIT AND THE ALLEGED CLAIMS BASED THEREON 14. Defendants dispute Claimant’s entitlement to the patent-in-suit and the claims for past use based thereon. For further details, reference is made to the decision of 11 March 2025 (paras. 13). CONSTRUCTION OF THE PATENT-IN-SUIT 15. For the parties’ arguments on the construction of the patent-in-suit and on the implemen- tation of its teaching by the attacked embodiment, it is referred to the decision of 11 March 2025 (paras. 14 to 28). 17 INFRINGING ACTS 16. Claimant states that there are sufficient indications that the Defendants distribute the con- tested embodiment in Poland, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom, at least that there is a serious risk. In this context, Claimant inter alia refers to Defendant 1 being the European sales subsidiary of the NUC group and the importer designated on the CE and UK CA mark (exhibit P14) and to Defendant 2 stating on its websites shipments in all member states of the European Union, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and French overseas departments and territories (exhibit P 11/11a). 17. Defendants point out that the Claimant did demonstrate and prove any acts of infringe- ment outside the home territory of the respective Defendant. REMEDIES 18. To Defendants’ mind, a specific designation of the infringing embodiment in the requests is required, and the requests are too broad in particular with regard to the alleged infring- ing acts of using and exporting. REQUEST FOR DECLARATION ON DAMAGES (C.I.) 19. In Defendants’ opinion, the periods in time for which Claimant can assert claims for dam- ages are restricted and depend on the date of the (alleged) assignment of the patent-in- suit and statutes of limitation. They may further depend on the date of the registration of the assignment with the national patent register and national translation requirements. REQUEST TO PAY DAMAGES IN COMPENSATION FOR MORAL PREJUDICE (C.II.) 20. In Defendants’ opinion, opting for Art. 68 (3)(b) UPCA as done by Claimant by basing its request for an interim award of damages on the principles of license analogy excludes dam- ages in compensation for moral prejudice pursuant to Art. 68 (3)(a) UPCA. Apart from that, compensation for non-material damages should only be granted in extremely exceptional cases and in the event of particularly serious infringements, which Claimant did not demon- strate on the instant facts. REQUEST FOR INTERIM AWARD OF DAMAGES (C.IV.) 21. In order to preliminarily estimate damages, Claimant in particular relies on published Ko- rean Government’s 2023 export turnover data for Defendant’s 1 parent company NUC 18 Electronics Co., Ltd. and assumes a share of 20 % for the contested embodiment. The De- fendants reject the approach as unfounded in its entirety. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (C.III.) 22. Defendants consider the request to be too broad. They would not owe information related to manufacturing and about names and contact details of non-commercial customers. Request C.IX. – Interim awards of costs 23. Claimant requests 50 % of the maximum recoverable costs of 112.000 EUR based on a value in suit of 750.000 EUR. 24. In Defendants’ opinion, the request is unfounded in particular because Claimant did not send a cease-and-desist letter or equivalent warning letter and therefore did never allow Defendants to discuss the alleged infringement out-of-court. Vice versa, the Court shall grant Defendants an interim award requiring Claimant to pay them the sum of 45,000 EUR as a reimbursement of legal defense costs pursuant to Art. 69 UPCA, R. 118(5), 119, 150(2) RoP. REFERENCE 25. For further details on the points at issue, reference is made to parties’ briefs and exhibits. GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION A. REQUESTS IN THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM RELEVANT TO THE SEPARATED PROCEEDINGS AT HAND 26. Requests A.II. and B.II. relate solely to the UPCA member states listed therein and are therefore of no relevance to the separated proceedings at hand. The same is true for the requests C.V. (destruction), C.VI. (recall) and C.VII (definite removal) which refer back to requests A.II. and B.II. Only products that are subject to the acts mentioned in A.II. and B.II., i.e. the acts listed therein and regarded as infringing in said UPCA member states according to A.II. and B.II., are “the products referred to under A.II. – as subsidiary request: referred under B.II. –“ within in the meaning of the requests C.V. to C.VII. In addition, request C.V. (destruction) is explicitly based on possession or ownership within the very UPCA member states that are mentioned in A.II. and B.II. This finding is further confirmed by the fact that 19 the Claimant bases its requests under C.V., C.VI. and C.VII solely on the law of the UPCA (cf. statement of claim (“SoC”), para. 267) and that Claimant refers with regard to the relevant provisions of the applicable substantive national laws of Poland, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom only to claims for damages and information (cf. brief of 22 April 2025, paras. 37 et seqq.). 27. The requests under C.VIII. (publication to be made on the website, letters to be sent to commercial clients and customers) are also based solely on infringement within said UPCA member states. Both the text to be published and the text of the letters to be sent refer to infringement in said UPCA member states only. Again, furthermore, Claimant bases these requests on provisions of the UPCA (cf. SoC, para. 269, brief of 21 January 2025, paras. 13 et seqq. (workflow ORD 2996/2025)). 28. Request C.IV (interim awards on damages) does not contain any explicit exclusion of dam- ages resulting from infringements in Poland, Spain, Turkey or the United Kingdom. In par- ticular, the reference to R. 119 RoP does not constitute such an indication, taking its pro- cedural character into account. However, such limitation unambiguously follows from the reasoning given in the statement of claim. In the section of the statement of claim relating to the interim award on damages (D.V.1.a, b, paras. 293 et seqq.), the Claimant only elab- orates on national substantive law of other countries. Even more decisive is the fact that the Claimant calculates the amount claimed as interim award on the basis of estimated export turnover and export quantities for a group of countries that does not include Po- land, Spain, Turkey or the United Kingdom. 29. For all other requests, despite their broad wording, sufficiently clear indications are lacking that they only relate to UPC member states. 30. A comprehensive decision on request C.IX. (interim award on legal costs and other ex- penses) has already been made in the decision of 11 March 2025 (para. 131). B. ADMISSIBILITY 31. The action is admissible as far as it is part of the present separated proceedings. 20 International jurisdiction of the UPC 32. Contrary to Claimant, due to the primacy of Union law, the objections against international jurisdiction are not precluded by R. 19.7 RoP. For further details, it is referred to the deci- sion of 11 March 2025 in the parallel proceedings UPC CFI 162 (para. 48). 33. However, since the Defendants have inter alia their principal place of business in the UPCA member states Germany and France respectively, the international jurisdiction of the UPC follows from Art. 71b (1) in conjunction with Art. 4 (1), Art. 63 (1) Brussels Ia Reg. 34. The UPC has jurisdiction if the national courts of one of the UPCA member states would have jurisdiction leaving the UPCA aside (Art. 71b (1) Brussels Ia Reg.). The necessary inter- national element of the legal relationship in question can result from its link to another EU member state or to a third state (cf. ECJ, judgment of 8 September 2022, C-399/21 paras. 27 et seqq. – IRnova; judgment of 1 March 2005, C-281/02, para. 26 – Owusu). 35. According to the ECJ’s ruling in re BSH Hausgeräte, the court of the Member State of the European Union in which the defendant is domiciled (Article 4(1) of the Brussels Ia Regula- tion) does have jurisdiction to rule on an infringement action based on a patent granted or validated in a EU member state (such as Poland and Spain) (even if the invalidity of this patent were raised as a defence which is not the case here) (cf. ECJ, judgment of 25 Febru- ary 2025, C-399/22, para. 52 – BSH Hausgeräte). 36. Similarly, in principle, the courts of the EU member states also have jurisdiction on an in- fringement action based on a patent granted or validated in a Non-EU member state (cf. ECJ, judgment of 25 February 2025, C-399/22, para. 61 – BSH Hausgeräte). This is true safe for the restrictions referred to in paragraphs 63 to 65 of the ECJ’s judgment in re BSH Haus- geräte (Lugano Convention (Art. 73 (1) Brussels Ia Reg.) or applicable bilateral convention according to Art. 73 (3) Brussels Ia Reg. as the case may be or a situation under Art. 33 or 34 Brussels Ia Reg). Still, there is no jurisdiction for a defence which seeks to affect the existence or content of that patent in that third state, or to cause its national register to be amended (cf. ECJ, judgment of 25 February 2025, C-399/22, paras. 74 et seq.). 37. In the case at hand, none of these restriction apply with regard to the Non-EU member states Turkey and the United Kingdom. Neither Turkey nor the United Kingdom are con- tracting member states to the Lugano Convention. The parties to the infringement action 21 at hand did not bring forward any bilateral convention between a member state to the UPCA and Turkey or the United Kingdom stipulating that the courts or other authorities in Turkey and the United Kingdom respectively have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes re- lating to the infringement (or, not relevant here, the validity) of patents granted or vali- dated in Turkey and the United Kingdom respectively. Thus, it can be left open whether such bilateral convention with only one or several but not all member states to the UPCA would suffice. In the absence of any proceeding in Turkey or the United Kingdom which relates to the infringement or validity of the patent-in-suit in Turkey and the United King- dom respectively, there is no situation which falls into the scope of Art. 33 or Art. 34 Brus- sels Ia Reg. either so that there is no reason to stay or dismiss the proceedings according to these provisions. The ECJ’s ruling in re BSH Hausgeräte deals with the principles of inter- national law, in particular with the principles of non-interference, forum inconvenience and comity, exhaustively so that there is no room for denying jurisdiction on these grounds in deviation from the ECJ’s ruling. 38. The principles set out in ECJ’s ruling in re BSH Hausgeräte are applicable to the UPC as a court common to the UPCA member states when assessing its international jurisdiction in accordance with Art. 71b Brussels Ia Reg. (cf. Local Division Paris, order of 21 March 2025, UPC CFI 702/2024; Local Division Munich, order of 14 April 2025, UPC CFI 566/2024, 39/2025; Local Division Milan, order of 15 April 2025, UPC CFI 792/2024; Local Division Paris, decision of 23 May 2025, UPC CFI 163/2024; Local Division Mannheim, decisions of 18 July 2025, UPC CFI 359/2023, 365/2023; Local Division Hamburg, order of 14 August 2025, UPC CFI 387/2025; prior to the ECJ’s judgment in re BSH Hausgeräte: Local Division Dusseldorf, decision of 28 January 2025, UPC CFI 355/2023). 39. Art. 71b Brussels Ia Regulation and the UPCA do not lead to another result. The term “mat- ter governed by that instrument” in Art. 71b (1) Brussels Ia Reg. does not relate to the territorial scope of jurisdiction but to the substantive legal matter for which the EU member states that are parties to the instrument have transferred the jurisdiction from their na- tional courts to the common court. Rather Art. 71b (1) Brussels Ia Reg. clarifies that the common court has international jurisdiction when the national courts of the participating EU member states would have jurisdiction in the absence of the instrument establishing the common court. Since (leaving aside the transition period and opt-outs) the national courts of the UPCA member states would have jurisdiction over infringement actions in 22 relation to the Polish, Spanish, Turkish and UK national part in accordance with ECJ’s ruling in re BSH Hausgeräte, so does the UPC (cf. for further details LD Dusseldorf, decision of 28 January 2025, UPC CFI 355/2023, p. 22/23). For this reason, contrary to Defendants, the decision of Poland and Spain not to transfer judicial sovereignty to the UPC is not affected because, in accordance with the ECJ’s ruling in re BSH Hausgeräte, they do not have exclu- sive sovereign jurisdiction over infringement proceedings regarding their national parts. Therefore, they cannot exclude the jurisdiction of national courts of other EU member states if these courts have jurisdiction in accordance with the ECJ’s ruling in re BSH Haus- geräte. In consequence (cf. Art. 71a (1), Art. 71b (1) Brussels Ia Reg.), they cannot exclude either that other EU member states transfer such jurisdiction of their national courts to a common court – be it that such common court had been set up by way of enhanced coop- eration as found to be in line with EU law by the ECJ (ECJ cases C-274/11 and C-295/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:240). 40. No different results follow from the UPCA, in particular not from Art. 34 UPCA. This provi- sion does not deal with the international jurisdiction in the first place (which, within the UPCA, is governed by Art. 31 UPCA). The provision does not exclude the UPC’s jurisdiction over national parts of European patents in relation to Non-UPC member states. There is no indication that the UPCA member states intended to transfer jurisdiction to the UPC with regard to their national parts of a European patent only, thereby reserving jurisdiction with regard to other national parts to their national courts. For further details, reference is made to LD Dusseldorf, decision of 28 January 2025, UPC CFI 355/2023 (p. 23). Jurisdiction of the UPC over acts committed before 1 June 2023 41. Contrary to Defendants’ view, the UPC has jurisdiction for acts committed before the UPCA’s entry into force on 1 June 2023 (cf. Court of Appeal, Order of 16 January 2025, UPC CoA 30/2024). For further details on the legal standard, reference is made to the de- cision of 11 March 2025 (para. 46). According to the excerpts from the national patent registers (exhibit P13), the patent-in-suit is in force in Poland, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The Defendants did not dispute this, in particular did not submit deviating regis- ter entries. Against this background, it can be left open whether the UPC has jurisdiction over all national parts of an European bundle patent as long as at least only one national part was still in force on 1 June 2023 or whether the UPC solely has jurisdiction over the 23 national parts that have not yet elapsed at that date and lacks jurisdiction for the other national parts. Competence of the Local Division Mannheim 42. The competence of the Local Division Mannheim follows for Defendant 1 from Art. 33 (1) (a), (b) UPCA and for Defendant 2 at least from R. 19.7 RoP and, apart from that, from Art. 33 (1) (a) UPCA. For further details, reference is made to the decisions of 11 March 2025 (para. 47). This competence with regard to Defendant 2, originally given pursuant to Art. 33 (1) (a) UPCA based on sufficiently substantiated alleged infringing acts of Defendant 2 in Germany, is not affected by the separation of the proceedings. As confirmed by Art. 33 (2) UPCA, with regard to the territorial scope, competence established under Art. 33 (1) (a) UPCA extends to all national parts of the same European patent in the UPC member states. The same applies to national parts of non-UPC member states. SPECIFICITY OF THE REQUESTS 43. Contrary to Defendants, Claimant’s requests do not lack specificity. There is no need to limit the requests to the specific infringing product. For further details, it is referred to the decision of 11 March 2025 (para. 48). C. CLAIMANT’S OWNERSHIP OF THE PATENT-IN-SUIT 44. Contrary to Defendants, Claimant has sufficiently established that it is the owner of the patent-in-suit. Claimant is undisputedly registered as proprietor in Poland, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Defendants have not refuted the at least strong indicative effect resulting therefrom that Claimant is the owner of the respective national part. Apart from that, the panel has no doubts that Claimant is the owner of the patent-in-suit. For further details, it is referred to the decision of 11 March 2025 (paras. 49 et seqq.). D. SCOPE OF THE PATENT-IN-SUIT 45. The patent-in-suit relates to a juice extractor. For a detailed description of its scope, it is referred to the decision 11 March 2025 (para. 55). 46. As a solution, the patent-in-suit provides in claim 1 a juice extractor, the features of which can be structured as follows (deviating classification numbers of the Defendants in brackets and italics): 24 [1A] A juice extractor comprising: [1B] a cover (100) having an inlet port formed on one side of an upper part thereof and a rotary shaft hole (120) formed in the center of an inner part thereof, [1C] a housing (500) installed on a lower part of the cover, [1D] [the housing] having a guide jaw formed on a bottom of the housing ([1C.1]), a draff outlet port (570) and a juice outlet port (560) formed apart from each other on a lower end part of the housing, ([1C.2]) [1E] a waterproof cylinder having a through hole and formed in the center of the lower part of the housing, ([1C.3]) [1F] a pressure discharge passage formed around a lower part of the waterproof cylinder, ([1C.4]) [1G] a screw (200) having an upper rotary shaft formed on an upper part of the screw (200) to be rotatably inserted into the rotary shaft hole ([1G.1]), [1H] [said screw (200) further having] a plurality of screw spirals formed on an outer surface of the screw, ([1G.2]) [1I] [said screw (200) further having] an inner ring formed at a lower end of the screw to project downward and having a plurality of screw gears rotatably inserted into the pressure discharge passage, ([1G.3]) [1J] a lower space formed inside the inner ring to receive the waterproof cylinder therein, and ([1G.4]) a lower rotary shaft formed in the center of a lower part of the screw and a polygonal shaft hole formed thereon, ([1G.5]) [1K] a mesh drum insertable into the guide jaw of the housing, the mesh drum (300) having a mesh structure formed on an outer wall of the mesh drum (300) to discharge juice to the juice outlet port, and [the mesh drum (300) having] a plurality of wall blades longitudinally formed on an inner surface of the mesh drum, [1L] a rotary brush (400) installed between the housing and the mesh drum (300) to be rotated, and having a brush holder in which a brush for continuously sweeping the mesh drum and the housing is installed, [1M] a drive unit (600) having a polygonal shaft that is inserted into the polygonal shaft hole through the through hole of the waterproof cylinder, and rotating the screw (200) at a low speed, 25 [1N] wherein the housing accommodating the screw is longitudinally fixed to an upper side of the drive unit (600) so as to press, grind and extract juice from materials put into the inlet port and to discharge the draff. Construction of Claim 1 47. For the construction of claim 1, it is referred to the decision of 11 March 2025 (paras. 57 et seqq.). No different result follows for the Polish, Spanish, Turkish and the UK national part. 48. Admittedly, across the EPC member states, the respective national courts may slightly de- viate in the way of interpreting Art. 69 EPC and the protocol on its interpretation. Such nuances according to the case law in different EPC member states are due to the lack of an instance ensuring a uniform application of Art. 69 EPC across the EPC member states and have to be accepted. The respective case law of their national courts in this regard is part of the national substantive law of the EPC member states which governs the infringement of European bundle patents in relation to their national parts (cf. infra under F. for more details). Therefore, when determining the substantive scope of a national part in relation to a non-UPC member state, the UPC, which harmonizes the interpretation with regard to the national parts of its member states only, has to observe the relevant legal standards on the application of Art. 69 EPC as set out in the relevant national case law of that non-UPC member state and, accordingly, apply Art. 69 EPC in the same way as a national court of that non-UPC member would do. 49. However, in the case at hand, applying these principles does not lead to a result different from that in the decision of 11 March 2025. The Claimant stated that it can be assumed that the findings of the panel in the case at hand are applicable to all EPC jurisdictions. Against this backdrop, it would have been for the Defendants to point at any differences resulting from the case law regarding claim construction in Poland, Spain, Turkey or the United Kingdom. E. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE CONTESTED EMBODIMENT 50. The contested embodiment implements all features of claim 1. As far as the Defendants do not dispute this, this is not based on a flawed analysis of the patent claim. Applying the claim construction set out in the decision of 11 March 2025 referred to above, the con- tested embodiment also implements the features [1B], [1C], [1E], [1F] and [1N] disputed 26 by the Defendants. For further details, reference is made to the decision of 11 March 2025 (paras. 79 et seqq.). F. APPLICABLE SUBSTANTIVE LAW 51. The determination of the substantive law applicable to an alleged infringement is to be strictly distinguished from the jurisdiction to hear the case (cf. Kalden, GRUR Patent 2023, 178 mn. 52; McGuire, GRUR Patent 2024, 466 mn. 5). 52. In accordance with the established principles of international private law enshrined in Art. 8 (1), Art. 1 (1) in conjunction with (in the case of Turkey and the United Kingdom) Art. 3 Rom II Regulation, infringements of the Polish, Spanish, Turkish and UK national part of the patent-in-suit are governed by the substantive national law of Poland, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom, respectively. G. INFRINGING ACTS 53. In accordance with the lex fori principle of international procedural law, in principle, the legal standard as to when facts are considered to be undisputed is governed by the proce- dural law of the seized court regardless of the substantive national law applicable to the instant facts. Therefore, in the case at hand, in the absence of any particular circumstances pointing in another direction, the principles of the UPC on when facts are relevantly stated and disputed respectively, apply. In particular, in accordance with R. 171.2 RoP, facts that are relevantly stated by the party relying on them have to be specifically contested by the other party. 54. The Defendants undisputedly offer and sell contested embodiments in their home country France and Germany respectively via their own web shops and – with regard to Defend- ant 1 – the web shop on amazon.com. For this reason, in the decision of 11 March 2025, the panel found the Defendants infringing upon the patent-in-suit in terms of offering, plac- ing on the market, using, importing and storing in the meaning of Art. 25 (a) UPCA in Ger- many and France. Furthermore, the panel found the Defendants infringing the patent-in- suit in the further UPC contracting member states Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Romania. For further details, it is referred to the decision of 11 March 2025 (paras. 105 et seqq.). 27 55. The same reasoning applies to Claimant’s factual statements on infringing acts in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom which are also undisputed on the instant facts because the Defendants at least failed to dispute them in a substantiated way. Claimant relevantly stated that Defendant 2 ships contested embodiments to all EU member states and the United Kingdom. This statement is relevant because Defendant’s 2 French web page from the French web shop (exhibit 11/11a) states in general terms that Defendant 2 ships prod- ucts to all EU member states and the United Kingdom (alongside Switzerland and French overseas territories). The fact that Defendant’s 2 website uses the French language does not alter the fact that the website itself states shipments to said countries outside France. The same reasoning applies to Defendant 1 accordingly, being undisputedly the European sales branch of the manufacturer, its Korean parent company NUC Electronics Co., Ltd., and the importer according to the CE mark and the equivalent UK mark on the nameplate of the test purchase (exhibit P 21), designating the Defendant 1 as the relevant importer for the EU and the UK respectively. Contrary to Defendants, the fact that the website “eu.kuvings.com” (exhibit P4 in the parallel proceedings UPC CFI 162/20241) does not list Spain (nor Denmark or Italy) under the caption “Europe with Kuvings” - as it does not high- light Spain, Denmark and Italy on the map shown thereon either - does not significantly call into question that the activity of Defendant 1 being the European sales branch also relates to Spain (and Denmark and Italy). The same applies to the fact that the website of Defend- ant’s 1 parent company (exhibit P 3/3a), which lists Defendant 1 as the “Europe branch”, does not provide a link for Spain either – as it does not provide links for Denmark and Italy either. Rather, these websites seem to merely depict countries in which the NUC group has an independent third party distribution partner as well as countries without such distribu- tion partner, but discloses no country where its products are not available. This is con- firmed by the facts that Defendant 1 (and not one of the external distributors) is designated as importer for the EU and the UK on the CE and UK mark of the contested embodiment (exhibit P 21), that the website of the parent company (exhibit P3/3a) speaks of “NUC over- seas distributors” with regard to the links provided thereon and that the website “eu.kuvings.com” (exhibit P4 in the parallel proceedings UPC CFI 162/2024) has a button next to the buttons for the different countries which shows the remark “be our partner! eu-sales@kuvings.com”, thereby clearly indicating that the countries expressly mentioned 1 invoked by both parties in their brief of 22 April 2025 para. 6 and 13 May 2025 para. 20 respectively (workflow ORD 15945/2025) 28 and highlighted on the map therein are countries with distribution partners and that they are looking for distribution partners for those remaining EU countries in which they do not yet have an independent distribution partner and which therefore are not expressly men- tioned and not highlighted on the map. Thus, the foregoing circumstances are no indication that Defendants do not ship contested embodiments to Poland, Spain and the United King- dom (or to Denmark or Italy). 56. Against this background, since the Claimant had good reasons for its statements that the Defendants ship products to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, it would have been for the Defendants to specifically contest these statements by clearly stating that they never shipped and would never ship contested embodiments to the countries in question, thereby specifying the basis of such statement, for instance, because they checked their books or installed effective measures which block shipment to the countries in question. However, the Defendants failed to do so. As far as they criticize lack of substantiation and evidence, this does not even constitute a denial. Therefore, it is undisputed (R. 171.2 RoP) that Defendants offered and, in case of a purchase, shipped contested embodiments to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom. 57. Contrary to Defendants, this finding is in line with the decision of the LD Paris of 24 April 2025 (UPC CFI 440/2025, GRUR-RS 2025, 7898, paras 108-110) because Claimant submit- ted sufficient facts supporting its statement of infringing acts in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom. 58. Contrary to Defendants, R. 13.1 (l) (i) RoP does not lead to another result. The provision prescribes that a Claimant has to specify the date and place of an alleged or threatened infringement already in the statement of claim provided he wishes to rely on such date and place. The provision does not stipulate any substantive requirement that an alleged in- fringement could be established only if a claimant is able to refer to a specific single date and a specific place. Due to norm hierarchy, R. 13.1 (l) (i) RoP cannot change the substantive law as applicable to the instant facts. 59. The principles of demonstration regarding the applicable substantive national law of UPCA member states are outlined in the decision of 11 March 2025 (paras. 101 et seqq.). Similar principles apply with regard to the content of applicable national substantive law of Non- UPCA member states governing alleged infringing acts: 29 60. Although the content of applicable national substantive law of Non-UPC member states is a question of law and not a question of facts, and although the UPC is usually not familiar with that national law, the court does not necessarily have to appoint a court expert who is familiar with the national substantive law in question. Rather, whether to appoint a court expert in order to clarify questions of applicable national substantive law of Non-UPCA member states depends on the circumstances of the individual case. If there is, based on the submissions of the parties, no doubt about the content of the relevant substantive na- tional law, the court is not prompted to appoint a court expert. Furthermore, the appoint- ment of a court expert requires a specific question of national law related to the specific case about which the court is in doubt and which is relevant for deciding the case. As the parties cannot expect that the UPC knows the relevant national substantive law, they are obliged to assert the relevant part of national law they wish to invoke so that the court is able to assess whether a court expert is needed. In this context, it is primarily up to the claimant to provide the court with the relevant provisions of the national law in question and, if appropriate, its application according to the relevant case law. It is then up to the defendant to point out specific points that lead to a different assessment. 61. In the case at hand, there is no doubt that, by shipping attacked embodiments to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom as established supra, the Defendants infringe upon the Polish, Spanish and UK part of the patent-in-suit respectively by own acts of direct infringe- ment. Claimant submitting the relevant provision of Polish, Spanish and UK substantive national law on damages asserts that the shipment of contested embodiments to these countries constitutes infringement under the relevant national law. There is no reason ap- parent why such shipment should not fall into scope of the provisions of the respective national substantive law presented by Claimant. In particular, the Defendants did not point at particular points in the respective substantive national law which call an infringement into question. Therefore, Defendants have to be found infringing upon the patent-in-suit in relation to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom without the need for appointing a court expert on questions of such national law. 62. However, the Claimant failed to relevantly state infringing acts committed by Defendants with regard to the Non-EU member state Turkey. Insofar the Claimant did not allege suffi- cient facts which, if given, would support its statement that Defendants ship or offer con- tested embodiments in Turkey. The Korean webpage of Defendant’s 1 parent company 30 listing links to its distributors (exhibit P 3/3a) provides a link for a distributor for Turkey. Claimant alleges that the contested embodiment is Defendants’ flagship product (SoC para. 337). However, there is no single pointer brought forward or apparent that Defendants are involved in any actual or threatening possibly infringing act in Turkey, in particular in ship- ments to Turkey. The marks CE, UK and CA on the nameplate of the test purchase in Ger- many (exhibit P21), designating the Defendant 1 as importer, obviously relate to the Euro- pean Economic Area, the United Kingdom and presumably Canada, but not to Turkey. As far as the Korean website of the parent company of the NUC group (exhibits P3/3a) lists und links to Defendant 1 as the “Europe Branch” of the NUC group, it is a mere speculation without sufficient factual basis that the term “Europe” is meant to encompass Turkey. On the contrary, the fact that the website eu.kuvings.com (exhibit P4 in the parallel proceed- ings UPC CFI 162/2024) lists under the caption “Europe with Kuvings” EU member and non-member states but not Turkey and that the map provided thereon does not show Tur- key at all points in the opposite direction. As far as Defendant 2 is concerned, Claimant did not demonstrate any pointer to involvement in a possible infringement in Turkey either. Defendant’s 2 web page from the French web shop (exhibit 11/11a) states in general terms that Defendant 2 ships products to all EU member states, Switzerland and the United King- dom as well as to French overseas territories but does not mention Turkey. Therefore, Claimant’s statement that Defendants infringe upon the patent-in-suit in Turkey is a mere statement into the blue without a sufficient factual basis and therefore of no relevance. In particular, it does not lead to an obligation of Defendants under R. 171.2 RoP to specifically contest it. In consequence, Claimant’s requests relating to Turkey must be already dis- missed. H. REMEDIES 63. The established infringement in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom justifies Claimant’s requests only in part. REQUEST OF DECLARATION OF INFRINGEMENT (A.I.) 64. The request to hold that the Defendants infringe the patent-in-suit has its basis in Art. 64 (2) (a) UPCA. By virtue of its at least procedural characteristic, the provision is applicable despite the fact that the infringement is governed by the national law of Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, respectively. In accordance with the lex fori principle of international 31 procedural law, procedural law of the forum governs the proceedings regardless of the substantive law applicable to the case – at least as far as the procedural instruments can be aligned with the applicable substantive law. In principle, this also relates to the opera- tive part of a judgment providing relief. It can be left open whether the application of Art. 64 (2) (a) UPCA being a provision of procedural law has to be modified as far as substantive national law governing the act of infringement deviates. In the case at hand, there are no pointers that the substantive law of Poland, Spain or the United Kingdom would exclude declaratory relief in the event that the defendant is found infringing. Therefore, there is no need for appointing a court expert on questions of national substantive law in this regard. 65. Since Claimant did not further elaborate on the request, but, later on, clarifies that the additional features of the sub-claims do not appear relevant in the absence of a counter- claim for revocation (cf. Reply, para. 169), the request has to be interpreted to aim at claim 1 only. To this extent, the declaration of the infringement serves the legitimate inter- est of Claimant to have it confirmed in the operative part of the decision that infringement has been found, in particular towards the operator of the Amazon marketplace, where the Defendants operate a web shop. REQUEST FOR DECLARATION ON DAMAGES (C.I.) 66. The declaration of entitlement to damages on the merits is based on Art. 287 (1) of the Polish Industrial Property Law, on Art. 71 (1)(b) of the Spanish Patent Act with regard to Spain and on Section 61 (1)(c) of the Patents Act 1977 with regard to the United Kingdom respectively and justified by the established infringement. Claimant submitted the relevant provisions without it being doubtful why, in principle, it should not be entitled to damages on the instant facts under the provisions as presented by Claimant. In particular, the De- fendants do not state the relevance of different provisions of the applicable substantive national law or any point of national law including case law that would exclude awarding damages on the instant facts from the outset. Again, at the present stage of the proceed- ings, there is therefore no need for appointing a court expert on questions of national sub- stantive law in this regard. 67. Defendants, with reasonable grounds, at least should have known that they engage in a patent infringing activity as they are obliged to monitor the IP rights of their competitors 32 so as not to infringe upon them. Claimant asserts that, according to the respective applica- ble substantive national law, Defendants’ conduct meets the requirements for being held liable for damages. Whether legal assertions on relevant substantive national law made by a claimant lead to the need for appointing a court expert on the relevant national law, depends on the circumstances of the individual case. At least in the case at hand, there are no reasons apparent why shipments to Poland, Spain or the UK which constitute direct own acts of infringement by Defendants as discussed supra, should not, in principle, entitle to damages in accordance with the text of the relevant provisions of the applicable substan- tive national law submitted by Claimant. Defendants did not raise any aspect of the rele- vant national law that would exclude damages in principle. 68. As discussed in the decision of 11 March 2025 (paras. 104, 116), the determination of the amount of damages and the time periods to be taken into account are reserved for subse- quent proceedings under R. 125 et seqq. RoP. Being part of the procedural structure of proceedings before the UPC, this applies regardless of what national part of a European Patent is concerned. Accordingly, at the present stage, the panel has not to adjudicate on any circumstances which would lead to certain time periods being exempted from the ob- ligation to pay damages pursuant to any applicable substantive national law. Such exemp- tion may result from different views on when negligence can be established. Accordingly, in the case at hand, the panel does not have to determine comprehensively and in detail what types of infringing acts were committed that go beyond the shipment and offering discussed supra. Similarly, it can be left open at this stage whether every single act of in- fringement actually leads to damages. 69. Contrary to Defendants, the damages are not restricted to a certain calculation method on the instant facts. As far as Claimant has chosen a certain method to estimate the amount for the requested interim award of damages, the method serves the purpose of estimation only, thereby not establishing a binding and final choice of the calculation method to be applied for the calculation of damages. REQUEST TO PAY DAMAGES IN COMPENSATION FOR MORAL PREJUDICE (C.II.) 70. The request for damages in compensation for moral prejudice has to be dismissed. Claim- ant did not demonstrate that the applicable national law of Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom respectively provides for such damages. Apart from that, Claimant did not bring 33 forward any facts which would call for a compensation for moral prejudice in the case at hand. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of 11 March 2025 (para. 119). REQUEST FOR INTERIM AWARD OF DAMAGES (C.IV.) 71. As discussed supra, the request does not relate to damages arising from infringements in relation to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom. Apart from that, for the same reasons given in the decision of 11 March 2025 (para. 120), an interim award of damages would not be justified for infringements in relation to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom either. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (C.III.) 72. The request for information finds its basis in Art. 286 (1) of the Polish Industrial Property Law, in Art. 73 (1) of the Spanish Patent Act with regard to Spain and in Part 31 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules with regard to the United Kingdom respectively and is justified by the established infringement. Again, Claimant submitted the relevant provisions without the Defendants stating the relevance of different provisions of the applicable national law. 73. The panel laid down in detail in the decision of 11 March 2025 (paras. 121 et seqq. in con- junction with para. 103) to what extent a right to information exists under Art. 67 (1) UPCA and Art. 68 (3) (a) (b) UPCA in conjunction with R. 191 sentence 1 alternative 2 RoP, respec- tively. Being at least a procedural right the provisions are applicable in the case at hand. It can be left open whether specific aspects of a right to information under Polish, Spanish or UK law need to be taken into account in this context. After the Claimant having denied any circumstances which would yield a different result as to the content and the extend of the information to be rendered, it would have been for the Defendants to point at specific points, if any, which are not justified under the laws of Poland, Spain or the United King- dom. 74. The panel does take into account the Court of Appeal’s order of 30 May 2025 (UPC CoA 845/2024, 50/2025). On the instant facts, considering the complexity, the panel regards it as not feasible to set an appropriate time period in advance in the individual case at hand. For the same reason, it exercises its discretion not to set an amount of penalty in case of non-compliance up-front, thereby retaining the flexibility to take into account the circumstances of the failure if the Defendants should fail to provide proper information in 34 due time. There is no reason for a grace period on the instant facts. As regularly, the in- fringer has to provide the information as soon as possible without undue delay. REQUEST FOR INTERIM AWARD OF COST 75. The request finds its basis in Art. 69 UPCA, R. R. 118(5), 119, R. 150(2) RoP. 76. Whereas the panel has already ruled on Claimant’s request comprehensively in the deci- sion of 11 March 2024 (para. 131) by awarding the full amount requested, taking Claimant’s success regarding the subject-matter of that decision into account, the panel then dis- missed Defendants’ request for an interim award on costs only in the light of their minor success regarding the subject-matter of that decision (para. 132). Therefore, the panel did not rule comprehensively on Defendants’ request in the decision of 11 March 2025. 77. In the separated proceedings at hand, as discussed supra, Defendants are successful with regard to Turkey and some minor requests. However, the panel exercises its discretion not to grant the Defendants an interim award on parts of its costs. When assessing the success of a party in the event of a separation of proceedings, the entire legal dispute prior to the separation must be taken into account with regard to those parties who are involved in both parts of the separated proceedings. The separation must not result in an advantage or disadvantage for either party in the allocation of costs. In view of the entire legal dispute, the infringement action against the Defendants was still successful in its essence. In partic- ular, it is not apparent that the alleged infringement in relation to Turkey for which only damages and information are sought has a significant economic effect in particular com- pared to the infringement in the UPC member states for which, inter alia, injunctive relief, destruction, recall and definite removal are sought. Therefore, the panel attributed only 10 % of the value in dispute to the separated proceedings at hand (decision of 11 March 2025, para. 136) encompassing besides Turkey also Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, i.e. countries for which the infringement action is overwhelmingly successful. I. ENFORCEMENT SECURITY 78. For the reasons set out in the decision of 11 March 2025 (paras. 133 et seq.) and persisting, the panel does not make the enforceability subject to the provision of a security by Claim- ant. 35 J. COSTS 79. The decision on costs is based on Art. 69 (1) UPCA, R. 118.5 RoP. Since the statement of claim is still unsuccessful to a minor part only, the panel exercises its discretion that the Defendants also have to bear the recoverable costs incurred for the separated part at hand in full. Since the separation must not affect the ceiling of the recoverable costs, the ceiling applies to the sum of recoverable costs incurred for both the part subject to the decision of 11 March 2025 and the separated part at hand. K. VALUE IN DISPUTE 80. In accordance with the decision of 11 March 2025 (para. 136) and for the reasons given therein, the panel sets the value in dispute for the separated proceedings at hand to be EUR 75.000. DECISION: A. It is held that Claimant has demonstrated that the Defendants infringed the claim No. 1 of the European patent No. EP 2 028 981 in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom. B. I. It is held that the Defendants shall pay damages to the Claimant arising from the infringing acts of EP 2 028 981 in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom. II. The Defendants are ordered to inform Claimant to the extent of which they have committed infringing acts referred to under B.I., stating i. the origin and distribution channels; ii. the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained; in particular o manufacturing quantities and times; o the individual deliveries, broken down by delivery quantities, times and prices and the respective product designations as well as the names and ad- dresses of the customers; o the turnover, the gross margin and the contribution margin generated by the Defendants with the sale of these products; 36 o the individual offers, broken down by quantities, times and prices and prod- uct designations as well as the names and addresses of the commercial offer recipients; o the advertising carried out, broken down by advertising media, their circula- tion, distribution period and distribution area, and in the case of internet ad- vertising, the domain, access figures and placement periods of each cam- paign; o the identity of all third parties involved in the distribution, in particular the names and addresses of the commercial buyers and the sales outlets for which the products were intended; whereby the Defendants each reserve the right to disclose the names of their non-commercial customers to an impartial auditor only, chosen by Claimant and paid by the respective Defendant, who, upon Claimant’s request, confirms or denies whether a specific non-commercial customer is contained in the disclo- sure and who, in all other cases, is subject to confidentiality towards the Claim- ant. C. I. As to the rest of the requests, the action is dismissed. II. The Defendants have to bear the costs of the litigation for the present separated part of the proceedings. III. The value in dispute is set at EUR 75.000. IV. The Order B.II. shall be enforceable only after the Claimant has notified the Court which part of the order it intends to enforce and this notification has been served on the Defendant concerned. 37 Delivered in Mannheim on 2 October 2025 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Presiding judge Tochtermann Legally qualified judge Böttcher Legally qualified judge Perrotti For the Sub-Registrar: Kranz, Clerk LD Mannheim Information about appeal An appeal against the present Decision may be lodged at the Court of Appeal, by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, within two months of the date of its notification (Art. 73(1) UPCA, R. 220.1(a), 224.1(a) RoP). Information about enforcement (Art. 82 UPCA, Art. Art. 37(2) UPCS, R. 118.8, 158.2, 354, 355.4 RoP) An authentic copy of the enforceable decision or order will be issued by the Deputy- Registrar upon request of the enforcing party, R. 69 RegR.

Key Holdings

• The UPC has international jurisdiction over infringement actions based on national parts of European patents in both EU member states (Poland, Spain) and non-EU member states (Turkey, United Kingdom), following the ECJ's ruling in re BSH Hausgeräte.
• The UPC has jurisdiction for acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force on 1 June 2023.
• Defendants infringed claim 1 of European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 by offering and shipping contested juice extractors to Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
• Claimant is entitled to damages and information regarding infringing acts in Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, governed by their respective national substantive laws.
• Requests for damages for moral prejudice and interim awards of damages were dismissed, and the action regarding Turkey was dismissed due to insufficient factual basis for infringing acts.

Tags

• Damages
• European Patent
• Information Order
• Infringement
• Jurisdiction
• Poland
• UPC
• United Kingdom

Related Rules

• Art. 7 – The Court of First Instance
• Art. 4 – Legal status
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 7 – The Court of First Instance
• Art. 3 – Scope of application
• Art. 3 – Scope of application
• Art. 7 – The Court of First Instance
• Art. 3 – Scope of application
• Art. 3 – Scope of application
• Art. 3 – Scope of application
• Art. 3 – Scope of application
• Art. 3 – Scope of application
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 7 – The Court of First Instance
• Art. 8 – Composition of the panels of the Court of First Instance
• Art. 3 – Scope of application
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 8 – Composition of the panels of the Court of First Instance
• Art. 1 – Unified Patent Court
• Art. 3 – Scope of application
• Art. 2 – Definitions
• Art. 7 – The Court of First Instance

Related Cases

• UPC_CFI_850/2024 – ZTE v Samsung
• UPC_CFI_2045/2025 – Amazon v InterDigital
• UPC_CFI_132/2024_July09_OralPrep – Total v Texas Instruments
• UPC_CFI_340/2023 – Rematec v Europe Forestry
• UPC_CFI_134/2025;UPC_CFI_660/2024 – Centripetal v Palo Alto