Hurom Loses Appeal in European Juicer Patent Dispute Against NUC Electronics and Kuvings

Hurom has lost its appeal in a European patent dispute involving NUC Electronics and its Kuvings juicers.

On August 28, 2026, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) dismissed Hurom's appeal in a patent infringement lawsuit against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd., NUC Electronics Europe, and French distributor WARMCOOK.

The case concerns European Patent EP 3155936, which relates to a juice extraction module for juicers.

Hurom claimed that the patented technology was used in several juicers sold by NUC Electronics under the Kuvings brand.

The UPC Court of Appeal ultimately upheld the first-instance decision, finding that the amended patent claims lacked an inventive step. As a result, Hurom's patent infringement claims were dismissed.

kuvings logo

 

hurom logo

What Was the Hurom vs. NUC Electronics Patent Dispute About?

The disputed European patent, EP 3155936, concerns a technical structure used inside a juicer.

The patent describes a rotating brush positioned between the juicing drum and the screen drum. Power from the main drive shaft is transmitted to the rotating brush through a lower gear module.

The rotating brush moves between the inside of the juicing drum and the outside of the screen drum during operation.

A cover is also positioned below the gear module to support and protect the lower portion of the mechanism.

In simple terms, the patent relates to how power is transmitted through gears to a rotating brush inside a juicer.

Hurom argued that this patented technology was incorporated into several Kuvings juicer models sold by NUC Electronics.

The products identified in the dispute included:

• Kuvings EVO820
• Kuvings REVO830
• Kuvings MOTIV 1
• Kuvings D9900
• Kuvings C7000
• Kuvings C9500

The UK was not included in the infringement claims considered in this particular proceeding.

Hurom Filed the Patent Lawsuit with the UPC in 2024

Hurom filed the patent infringement lawsuit at the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in April 2024.

Hurom alleged that NUC Electronics and WARMCOOK had infringed its European patent in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland.

In response, NUC Electronics and WARMCO filed counterclaims seeking to invalidate the patent claims.

They argued that the amended claims went beyond the scope of the original patent application and also lacked inventive step.

At the first-instance stage, Hurom submitted a Main Request consisting of six amended claims.

Hurom also submitted an Auxiliary Request consisting of three claims that combined certain technical features, in case the Main Request was not accepted.

In May 2025, the UPC Paris Local Division ruled against Hurom.

The court found that the relevant claims lacked inventive step and invalidated the claims in France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands.

Hurom's patent infringement claims were also dismissed.

Hurom subsequently appealed the decision.

UPC Court of Appeal Also Finds No Inventive Step

The key issue before the Court of Appeal was whether amended Claims 1 through 3 involved an inventive step.

The Court of Appeal examined prior art, including Chinese Utility Model CN 202365584 U, titled "Juice Extractor."

The Chinese utility model already disclosed several important features found in Hurom's patent, including:

• A juicing drum
• A rotating brush
• A drive shaft
• Multiple gears
• A mechanism for transmitting power to the rotating brush

The Court of Appeal found that the major technical features of Hurom's patent were already disclosed in this prior art.

The main difference identified by the court was the cover positioned underneath the gear module.

However, the court concluded that adding a cover to protect and support the lower portion of a rotating mechanism would have been an obvious choice for a person skilled in the art.

Such a cover could prevent the exposed rotating mechanism from being damaged or contaminated during operation.

Therefore, the court concluded that Claim 1 could be derived in an obvious manner from the Chinese utility model combined with common general knowledge in the field.

Claims 2 and 3 Were Also Found to Lack Inventive Step

The same reasoning was applied to Claims 2 and 3.

Claim 2 added an intermediate gear between the first and second shaft gears.

However, the Court of Appeal found that the Chinese utility model already disclosed multiple transmission gears through which power was transferred from the drive shaft to the rotating brush.

Therefore, the intermediate gear arrangement was not considered sufficiently inventive.

Claim 3 added a structure in which the main drive shaft passes through the first shaft gear and connects to the power connection component.

The court also found that this type of connection structure was disclosed in the prior art, including a polygonal shaft opening.

As a result, the Court of Appeal concluded that Claims 1, 2, and 3 all lacked inventive step.

Korean Patent Also Considered as Prior Art

The Court of Appeal also referred to a Korean patent publication, Korean Patent Application Publication No. 10-2013-0016748, which was related to the same general technical concept as the Chinese utility model.

The Korean document described a vertical juicer structure in which gears are housed in a space at the lower part of the juicer and the lower portion is covered by a protective cover.

The corresponding Korean application was subsequently registered as Patent No. 10-1267801 in May 2013.

This document was considered together with the other prior art when assessing the inventive step of Hurom's patent claims.

New Auxiliary Requests Submitted by Hurom Were Not Considered

During the appeal, Hurom submitted two additional auxiliary requests.

These new requests included, among other things, a limitation specifying that the power connection component and the first shaft gear were separate components.

However, the UPC Court of Appeal determined that the issues addressed by these new auxiliary requests had already been discussed during the first-instance proceedings.

The court found that Hurom could have amended its claims on the same basis during the first-instance trial.

Therefore, the newly submitted auxiliary requests were not admitted for consideration at the appeal stage.

The auxiliary request that had been submitted during the first-instance proceedings was accepted for consideration as a new Main Request at the appeal stage.

Nevertheless, the court ultimately reached the same conclusion: the claims lacked inventive step.

Patent Infringement Claims in Europe Were Dismissed

Because no valid patent claims remained in France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, Hurom's corresponding patent infringement claims were also dismissed.

The situation in Poland was considered separately.

The UPC Court of Appeal stated that the validity of a Polish patent falls within the jurisdiction of the relevant national court.

However, the UPC could still consider infringement claims relating to alleged acts of infringement occurring in Poland.

In this case, however, the court found that Hurom had not provided sufficient evidence to establish actual infringement activities in Poland.

Hurom had submitted evidence including:

• The availability of Kuvings and WARMCOOK online stores to customers in Europe
• Information indicating that products sold through the French Amazon store could be shipped to Poland
• Korean customs data concerning exports of juicers

The court found that these materials alone were insufficient to prove that NUC Electronics or WARMCOOK had actually sold or distributed the products in Poland in a manner that infringed the relevant patent.

The opinion submitted by Hurom's Polish legal counsel also did not sufficiently explain which specific activities constituted patent infringement under Polish law.

Accordingly, Hurom's infringement claims relating to Poland were also unsuccessful.

Hurom Ordered to Pay €100,000 in Interim Legal Costs

The UPC Court of Appeal ordered Hurom to bear the costs associated with its appeal concerning patent validity and infringement.

The court also ordered Hurom to pay €100,000 in interim legal costs to NUC Electronics and WARMCO.

The cross-appeal filed by NUC Electronics and WARMCO was also unsuccessful.

The Court of Appeal dismissed some of their arguments because they did not meet the requirements for an appeal and rejected the remaining arguments on their merits.

What Does This Decision Mean for the European Juicer Market?

The dispute is notable because it involves two major Korean juicer brands, Hurom and Kuvings, and concerns the protection and enforcement of juicer technology patents in the European market.

The most important point in the UPC Court of Appeal's decision is that the amended claims of Hurom's EP 3155936 patent were found to lack inventive step.

According to the court, the relevant technical features could be derived from existing prior art, including the Chinese utility model, together with common general knowledge in the field.

As a result, Hurom's patent infringement claims were not upheld in this appeal.

For NUC Electronics and Kuvings, the decision represents a favorable outcome in a significant European patent dispute involving several major Kuvings juicer models.

The case also highlights the importance of patent validity, prior art, inventive step, and evidence of actual infringement in patent litigation before the Unified Patent Court.

As competition among Korean juicer manufacturers continues in Europe and other international markets, intellectual property rights and patent strategies are likely to remain important factors in the premium juicer industry.

Key Takeaways

• Patent holder: Hurom
• Patent: European Patent EP 3155936
• Technology: Juice extraction module and rotating brush mechanism
• Defendants: NUC Electronics, NUC Electronics Europe, and WARMCOOK
• Brand involved: Kuvings (KUVINGS)
• Main products: EVO820, REVO830, MOTIV 1, D9900, C7000, C9500
• First instance: Hurom's relevant patent claims were found to lack inventive step
• Appeal: Hurom's appeal was dismissed
• Key issue: Lack of inventive step based on prior art and common general knowledge
• France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands: Patent infringement claims dismissed
• Poland: Infringement not sufficiently proven
• Legal costs: Hurom ordered to pay €100,000 in interim legal costs to NUC Electronics and WARMCOOK

 

UPC - Hurom v. NUC and Warmcook / Application to amend - Appeal - EPLAW

 

Juicer Patent Case in Europe: Kuvings vs Hurom – What Happened?