ORD_4336/2025 | EP3155936 | UPC Decision Search

	Type Order Decision	Reference	Court Division Brüssel Brussels Copenhagen Den Haag Düsseldorf Hamburg Helsinki Lisbon Lissabon Luxembourg Luxemburg Mailand Mannheim Milan München Munich Nordic Baltic Regional Division Paris The Hague Vienna			Tags
5 February, 2025	Order	ORD_4336/2025	Paris (FR) Local Div…	EP3155936	R. 36 RoP ...	Please log in to add tags.	Please log in to add notes. Please log in to add tags. Show on UPC ORD_4336/2025 5 February, 2025 Order Summary (AI generated) Party Hurom Co., Ltd Registry Information Registry Number: App_4027/2025 Court Division: Paris (FR) Local Division Type of Action: Generic application Language of Proceedings: EN Patent at issue EP3155936 Sections Headnotes (EN) 1-As foreseen by Rule 12 RoP, the rules of procedure divide the written procedure into several successive stages: - workflow 1, relating to the infringement claim itself comprising a set of 4 statements, - followed by workflow 2 dedicated to the validity of the patent in the event of a counterclaim for revocation of the patent at issue, - finally, workflow 3 is specifically dedicated to the amendment of the patent at issue, if requested. In workflow 1, the defendant in the infringement claim has the last word. In workflow 2, the defendant in the attack on the validity of the patent in question has the last word. Finally, in workflow 3, in the event of a request to amend the patent in question, the defendant to this request has the last word. These workflows, with strict deadlines, are aimed at ensuring the most efficient and economical procedure before the UPC, in accordance with point 4 of the Preamble. 2- In accordance with the main principle of fairness (point 2 of the preamble), R 36 RoP allows the parties to request further written submissions to the judge-rapporteur upon reasoned request. Under R 36 RoP, the parties have the right to ask for further statements before the closure of the written procedure. In the case at hand, the Defendants did not contest that they raised new arguments. According to the Applicant, their last response should be concise (no more than 8 pages). To ensure fairness and equity in the proceedings, and considering the short timeline requested by the Applicant, the judge-rapporteur considers that the R 36 request can be granted without affecting the timeframe of the proceedings, specifically concerning the date set for the Interim Conference. Keywords (EN) Efficiency of the proceedings, Fairness and equity principles, Stages of the written procedure according to R.12 RoP, R. 36 RoP - Further exchanges of written pleadings Cited Legal Standards R 36 RoP R. 36 RoP R.36 RoP Rule 12 Rule 13 Rule 25.1 Rule 25.2 Rule 29 Rule 30 Rule 32 Rule 32.3 RoP Rule 333 RoP Rule 35 Rule 36 Documents Download Order (EN) Add a custom note or summary to this decision Styles Text Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Bold ⌘B Italic ⌘I Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S Bullet list Ordered list Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B Insert link ⌘K Insert link Unlink Align Left Center Right Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_163/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 05/02/2025 concerning further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) APPLICANT - CLAIMANT Hurom Co., Ltd 80-60 Golden root-ro, Juchon-myeon 62184 - Gimhae-si, Gyeongsangnam-do - KR Represented by Sabine Agé RESPONDENTS - DEFENDANTS NUC Electronics Co., Ltd 280, Nowon-ro 41548 - Buk-gu, Daegu - KR Represented by Didier INTES NUC Electronics Europe GmbH Schwalbacher Straße 76 65760 - Eschborn - DE Represented by Didier INTES Warmcook 73 boulevard Gay Lussac 13014 - Marseille - FR Represented by Didier INTES PATENT AT ISSUE Patent no. Proprietor EP3155936 HUROM Co., Ltd DECIDING JUDGE Presiding judge & Judge-rapporteur Camille Lignières LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English ORDER Facts and history of the proceedings HUROM (the 'Claimant' or the 'Applicant' in this applicaƟon) filed an infringement acƟon based on patent EP' 936 against the NUC enƟƟes and WARMCOOK (the 'Defendants' in the main acƟon and this applicaƟon). The parƟes have already exchanged their statements, as follows: -Statement of Claim from HUROM on April 3, 2024, -Statement of Defence and counterclaims for revocaƟon of the Patent from NUC and WARMCOOK, on July 17, 2024, -Reply from HUROM, including an applicaƟon to uncondiƟonally amend the Patent, on September 17, 2024, -Rejoinder from NUC and WARCOOK on November 14, 2024, -the Claimant Rejoinder from HUROM on December 16, 2024, -the UlƟmate Rejoinder from NUC and WARMCOOK on January 15, 2025. On January 21, 2025, the judge rapporteur informed by email the parƟes that, according to Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure, she planned to close the wriƩen procedure in this case on January 27, 2025. On January 24, 2025, HUROM submiƩed a request under R.36 RoP for further statements, asking the Court to: -declare that the secƟons of the Claimant's Rejoinder challenged by the Defendants are admissible, -alternaƟvely, permit both ParƟes to submit further statements to address the new points raised by the Defendants in their Rejoinder. On January 27, 2025, the judge rapporteur issued a preliminary order requesƟng the defendants to provide their wriƩen comments on HUROM's request. On the same day, NUC and WARMCOOK filed their comments requesƟng the rejecƟon of the HUROM applicaƟon, arguing the following: -the admissibility of the allegedly new arguments fi led by the Defendants in the Rejoinder (dated November 14, 2024) has not been challenged by the Claimant in the Claimant Rejoinder, while the Claimant raised other inadmissibility issues, -the allegedly new arguments fi led by the Defendants in the Rejoinder actually consist in mere clarificaƟons or answers to the Reply filed by Hurom, in the context of the uncondiƟonal amendment of the Patent by the Claimant, -as defendants in infringement proceedings, the Defendants shall have the last word and be the latest party to present its arguments regarding the materiality of the infringement and the remedies. Legal framework 'Rule 12 Exchange of wriƩen pleadings (infringement acƟon) The wriƩen procedure shall consist of: (a) the lodging of a Statement of claim (by the claimant) [Rule 13]; (b) the lodging of a Statement of defence (by the defendant) [Rules 23 and 24]; and, opƟonally (c) the lodging of a Reply to the Statement of defence (by the claimant) [Rule 29(b)]; and (d) the lodging of a Rejoinder to the Reply (by the defendant) [Rule 29(c)]. The Statement of defence may include a Counterclaim for revocaƟon [Rule 25.1]. If a Counterclaim for revocaƟon is lodged: (a) the claimant and any proprietor who becomes a party pursuant to Rule 25.2 (hereinaŌer in this Rule 12 and Rules 29 to 32, 'the proprietor') shall lodge a Defence to the Counterclaim for revocaƟon [Rule 29(a)], which may include an ApplicaƟon to amen d the patent by the proprietor [Rule 30]; (b) the defendant may lodge a Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim [Rule 29(d)]; and (c) the claimant and the proprietor may lodge a Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim [Rule 29(e)]. If an ApplicaƟon to amend the patent is lodged by the proprietor, the defendant shall lodge a Defence to the ApplicaƟon to amend the patent in the Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim, the proprietor may lodge a Reply to the Defence to the Applica Ɵon to amend and the defendant may lodge a Rejoinder to such Reply [Rule 32]. The judgerapporteur may allow the exchange of further wriƩen pleadings, within Ɵme periods to be speci fi ed [Rule 36].' Rule 32.3 RoP: ' The proprietor may lodge a Reply to the Defence to the ApplicaƟon to amend the patent within one month of service of the Defence and the defendant may within one month of the service of the Reply lodge a Rejoinder to the Reply. The Rejoinder shall be limi ted to the maƩers raised in the Reply.' Grounds As foreseen by Rule 12 RdP, the rules of procedure divide the wriƩen procedure into several successive stages: -workflow 1, relaƟng to the infringement claim itself comprising a set of 4 statements, followed by work fl ow 2 dedicated to the validity of the patent in the event of a counterclaim for revocaƟon of the patent at issue, -fi nally, work fl ow 3 is speci fi cally dedicated to the amendment of the patent at issue, if requested. In work fl ow 1, the defendant in the infringement claim has the last word, in this case, NUC and WARMCOOK. In workflow 2, the defendant in the aƩack on the validity of the patent in quesƟon has the last word, in this case, HUROM. Finally, in workflow 3, in the event of a request to amend the patent in quesƟon, the defendant to this request has the last word, in this case, NUC and WARMCOOK. These work fl ows, with strict deadlines, are aimed to ensure the most e ffi cient and economical procedure before the UPC, in accordance with point 4 of the Preamble. In parƟcular, R 32 -3 RdP in fi ne expressly states that 'The Rejoinder shall be limited to the matters raised in the Reply.' In the case at hand, NUC and WARMCOOK had the last word in work fl ow 1 dedicated to the infringement and its remedies, in their statement lodged on 16/11/2024. In HUROM's statement filed on December 16, 2025, which is part of workflow 3 of the wriƩen procedure, the Claimant was required to respond solely to the validity of the patent including the proposed amendment issues, presented in their statement from NUC and WARMCOOK dated November 14, 2024. If HUROM considered that new arguments regarding the infringement issue needed further submissions, it was up to HUROM to submit a reasoned request to the judge-rapporteur pursuant to R 36 RoP. Thus, the judgerapporteur notes that the Defendants rightly considered in their ulƟmate Rejoinder dated January 15, 2025, that the new arguments on infringement put forward by HUROM in its Rejoinder dated December 16, 2024, were inadmissible at this stage, concerning these secƟons: -SecƟon 2 'On the infringement' (p. 48 to 51) of the Claimant Rejoinder; and -SecƟon 3 'On the remedies' (p. 52 to 56) of the Claimant Rejoinder; and -the supporƟng pieces of evidence referred to in this SecƟon (Hurom Exhibits No. 27.1 and 27.2). In accordance with the main principle of fairness (point 2 of the preamble), R 36 RoP allows the parƟes to request further wriƩen submissions to the judge -rapporteur upon reasoned request. Under R 36 RoP, the parƟes have the right to ask for further sta tements before the closure of the wriƩen procedure. The Defendants did not contest that they raised new arguments on infringement issues in their statement dated November 16, 2024. According to HUROM, their last response should be concise (no more than 8 pages). To secure fairness and equity of the proceedings, and regarding the short Ɵmeline requested by the Applicant, the judge-rapporteur considers that HUROM's request can be granted without affecƟng the Ɵmeframe of the proceedings (Interim Conference is sche duled for 11 March 2025). Considering all these elements, the judge-rapporteur: -Declares that arguments menƟoned in secƟons 2 and 3 in HUROM's statement of 15/01/2025 are inadmissible, -Authorises further exchanges of wriƩen pleadings, as follows: -Last statement from HUROM, strictly dedicated to responding to the new arguments presented by the Defendants in their Rejoinder dated November 14, 2024, regarding infringement and its remedies, (maximum of 8 pages), due by 10 February 2025, -Response from NUC and WARMCOOK, strictly dedicated to addressing the points raised by HUROM in its latest statement (maximum of 8 pages), due by 15 February 2025 . The wriƩen procedure will be closed at the end of this last exchange. This order may be reviewed pursuant to Rule 333 RoP. Issued in Paris, on 5 February 2025. C. Lignieres, Judge-rapporteur ORDER DETAILS Order no. ORD_4336/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_17434/2024 UPC number: UPC_CFI_163/2024 Action type: Infringement Action Related proceeding no. Application No.: 4027/2025 Application Type: R 36 application

ORD_4336/2025

Paris Local Division

UPC_CFI_163/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court

delivered on 05/02/2025

concerning further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP)

APPLICANT - CLAIMANT

Hurom Co., Ltd 80-60 Golden root-ro, Juchon-myeon 62184 - Gimhae-si, Gyeongsangnam-do - KR

Represented by

Sabine Agé

RESPONDENTS - DEFENDANTS

NUC Electronics Co., Ltd 280, Nowon-ro 41548 - Buk-gu, Daegu - KR

Represented by

Didier INTES

NUC Electronics Europe GmbH Schwalbacher Straße 76 65760 - Eschborn - DE

Represented by

Didier INTES

Warmcook 73 boulevard Gay Lussac 13014 - Marseille - FR

Represented by

Didier INTES

PATENT AT ISSUE

Patent no.

Proprietor

EP3155936

HUROM Co., Ltd

DECIDING JUDGE

Presiding judge & Judge-rapporteur

Camille Lignières

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English

ORDER

Facts and history of the proceedings

HUROM (the 'Claimant' or the 'Applicant' in this applicaƟon) filed an infringement acƟon based on patent EP' 936 against the NUC enƟƟes and WARMCOOK (the 'Defendants' in the main acƟon and this applicaƟon).

The parƟes have already exchanged their statements, as follows:

-Statement of Claim from HUROM on April 3, 2024,

-Statement of Defence and counterclaims for revocaƟon of the Patent from NUC and WARMCOOK, on July 17, 2024,

-Reply from HUROM, including an applicaƟon to uncondiƟonally amend the Patent, on September 17, 2024,

-Rejoinder from NUC and WARCOOK on November 14, 2024,

-the Claimant Rejoinder from HUROM on December 16, 2024,

-the UlƟmate Rejoinder from NUC and WARMCOOK on January 15, 2025.

On January 21, 2025, the judge rapporteur informed by email the parƟes that, according to Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure, she planned to close the wriƩen procedure in this case on January 27, 2025.

On January 24, 2025, HUROM submiƩed a request under R.36 RoP for further statements, asking the Court to:

-declare that the secƟons of the Claimant's Rejoinder challenged by the Defendants are admissible,
-alternaƟvely, permit both ParƟes to submit further statements to address the new points raised by the Defendants in their Rejoinder.

On January 27, 2025, the judge rapporteur issued a preliminary order requesƟng the defendants to provide their wriƩen comments on HUROM's request.

On the same day, NUC and WARMCOOK filed their comments requesƟng the rejecƟon of the HUROM applicaƟon, arguing the following:

-the admissibility of the allegedly new arguments fi led by the Defendants in the Rejoinder (dated November 14, 2024) has not been challenged by the Claimant in the Claimant Rejoinder, while the Claimant raised other inadmissibility issues,

-the allegedly new arguments fi led by the Defendants in the Rejoinder actually consist in mere clarificaƟons or answers to the Reply filed by Hurom, in the context of the uncondiƟonal amendment of the Patent by the Claimant,

-as defendants in infringement proceedings, the Defendants shall have the last word and be the latest party to present its arguments regarding the materiality of the infringement and the remedies.

Legal framework

'Rule 12 Exchange of wriƩen pleadings (infringement acƟon)

1. The wriƩen procedure shall consist of:
(a) the lodging of a Statement of claim (by the claimant) [Rule 13];
(b) the lodging of a Statement of defence (by the defendant) [Rules 23 and 24]; and, opƟonally
(c) the lodging of a Reply to the Statement of defence (by the claimant) [Rule 29(b)]; and
(d) the lodging of a Rejoinder to the Reply (by the defendant) [Rule 29(c)].
1. The Statement of defence may include a Counterclaim for revocaƟon [Rule 25.1].
1. If a Counterclaim for revocaƟon is lodged:
(a) the claimant and any proprietor who becomes a party pursuant to Rule 25.2 (hereinaŌer in this Rule 12 and Rules 29 to 32, 'the proprietor') shall lodge a Defence to the Counterclaim for revocaƟon [Rule 29(a)], which may include an ApplicaƟon to amen d the patent by the proprietor [Rule 30];
(b) the defendant may lodge a Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim [Rule 29(d)]; and
(c) the claimant and the proprietor may lodge a Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim [Rule 29(e)].
1. If an ApplicaƟon to amend the patent is lodged by the proprietor, the defendant shall lodge a Defence to the ApplicaƟon to amend the patent in the Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim, the proprietor may lodge a Reply to the Defence to the Applica Ɵon to amend and the defendant may lodge a Rejoinder to such Reply [Rule 32].
1. The judgerapporteur may allow the exchange of further wriƩen pleadings, within Ɵme periods to be speci fi ed [Rule 36].'

Rule 32.3 RoP:

' The proprietor may lodge a Reply to the Defence to the ApplicaƟon to amend the patent within one month of service of the Defence and the defendant may within one month of the service of the Reply lodge a Rejoinder to the Reply. The Rejoinder shall be limi ted to the maƩers raised in the Reply.'

Grounds

As foreseen by Rule 12 RdP, the rules of procedure divide the wriƩen procedure into several successive stages:

-workflow 1, relaƟng to the infringement claim itself comprising a set of 4 statements,
- followed by work fl ow 2 dedicated to the validity of the patent in the event of a counterclaim for revocaƟon of the patent at issue,
-fi nally, work fl ow 3 is speci fi cally dedicated to the amendment of the patent at issue, if requested.

In work fl ow 1, the defendant in the infringement claim has the last word, in this case, NUC and WARMCOOK.

In workflow 2, the defendant in the aƩack on the validity of the patent in quesƟon has the last word, in this case, HUROM.

Finally, in workflow 3, in the event of a request to amend the patent in quesƟon, the defendant to this request has the last word, in this case, NUC and WARMCOOK.

These work fl ows, with strict deadlines, are aimed to ensure the most e ffi cient and economical procedure before the UPC, in accordance with point 4 of the Preamble.

In parƟcular, R 32 -3 RdP in fi ne expressly states that 'The Rejoinder shall be limited to the matters raised in the Reply.'

In the case at hand, NUC and WARMCOOK had the last word in work fl ow 1 dedicated to the infringement and its remedies, in their statement lodged on 16/11/2024.

In HUROM's statement filed on December 16, 2025, which is part of workflow 3 of the wriƩen procedure, the Claimant was required to respond solely to the validity of the patent including the proposed amendment issues, presented in their statement from NUC and WARMCOOK dated November 14, 2024. If HUROM considered that new arguments regarding the infringement issue needed further submissions, it was up to HUROM to submit a reasoned request to the judge-rapporteur pursuant to R 36 RoP.

Thus, the judgerapporteur notes that the Defendants rightly considered in their ulƟmate Rejoinder dated January 15, 2025, that the new arguments on infringement put forward by HUROM in its Rejoinder dated December 16, 2024, were inadmissible at this stage, concerning these secƟons:

-SecƟon 2 'On the infringement' (p. 48 to 51) of the Claimant Rejoinder; and
-SecƟon 3 'On the remedies' (p. 52 to 56) of the Claimant Rejoinder; and

-the supporƟng pieces of evidence referred to in this SecƟon (Hurom Exhibits No. 27.1 and 27.2).

In accordance with the main principle of fairness (point 2 of the preamble), R 36 RoP allows the parƟes to request further wriƩen submissions to the judge -rapporteur upon reasoned request. Under R 36 RoP, the parƟes have the right to ask for further sta tements before the closure of the wriƩen procedure.

The Defendants did not contest that they raised new arguments on infringement issues in their statement dated November 16, 2024. According to HUROM, their last response should be concise (no more than 8 pages).

To secure fairness and equity of the proceedings, and regarding the short Ɵmeline requested by the Applicant, the judge-rapporteur considers that HUROM's request can be granted without affecƟng the Ɵmeframe of the proceedings (Interim Conference is sche duled for 11 March 2025).

Considering all these elements, the judge-rapporteur:

-Declares that arguments menƟoned in secƟons 2 and 3 in HUROM's statement of 15/01/2025 are inadmissible,

-Authorises further exchanges of wriƩen pleadings, as follows:

-Last statement from HUROM, strictly dedicated to responding to the new arguments presented by the Defendants in their Rejoinder dated November 14, 2024, regarding infringement and its remedies, (maximum of 8 pages), due by 10 February 2025,

-Response from NUC and WARMCOOK, strictly dedicated to addressing the points raised by HUROM in its latest statement (maximum of 8 pages), due by 15 February 2025 .

The wriƩen procedure will be closed at the end of this last exchange.

This order may be reviewed pursuant to Rule 333 RoP.

Issued in Paris, on 5 February 2025.

C. Lignieres, Judge-rapporteur

ORDER DETAILS

Order no. ORD_4336/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_17434/2024

UPC number: UPC_CFI_163/2024

Action type:

Infringement Action

Related proceeding no. Application No.:

4027/2025

Application Type: R 36 application