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
1) Hurom Co., Ltd
80-60 Golden root-ro, Juchon-myeon
62184 - Gimhae-si, Gyeongsangnam-do - KR
Represented by
Sabine Agé

RESPONDENTS - DEFENDANTS
1) NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
280, Nowon-ro
41548 - Buk-gu, Daegu - KR
Represented by
Didier INTES
2) NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
Schwalbacher Straße 76
65760 - Eschborn - DE
Represented by
Didier INTES
3) 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 & Camille Lignières
Judge-rapporteur

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English

ORDER
Facts and history of the proceedings
HUROM (the “Claimant” or the “Applicant” in this applica􀆟on) filed an infringement ac􀆟on based
on patent EP’ 936 against the NUC entities and WARMCOOK (the “Defendants” in the main ac􀆟on
and this applica􀆟on).
The par􀆟es have already exchanged their statements, as follows:
-Statement of Claim from HUROM on April 3, 2024,
-Statement of Defence and counterclaims for revoca􀆟on of the Patent from NUC and WARMCOOK,
on July 17, 2024,
-Reply from HUROM, including an application to unconditionally 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 Ultimate Rejoinder from NUC and WARMCOOK on January 15, 2025.
On January 21, 2025, the judge rapporteur informed by email the par􀆟es that, according to Rule
35 of the Rules of Procedure, she planned to close the wri􀆩en procedure in this case on January
27, 2025.
On January 24, 2025, HUROM submitted a request under R.36 RoP for further statements, asking
the Court to:
- declare that the sec􀆟ons of the Claimant's Rejoinder challenged by the Defendants are admissible,
- alternatively, permit both Par􀆟es 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 reques􀆟ng the defendants
to provide their wri􀆩en comments on HUROM's request.
On the same day, NUC and WARMCOOK filed their comments reques􀆟ng the rejec􀆟on of the HU-
ROM applica􀆟on, arguing the following:
-the admissibility of the allegedly new arguments filed 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 filed by the Defendants in the Rejoinder actually consist in mere
clarifica􀆟ons or answers to the Reply filed by Hurom, in the context of the uncondi􀆟onal amend-ment
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 reme-dies.
Legal framework
“Rule 12 – Exchange of written pleadings (infringement action)
1. The wri􀆩en 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, op􀆟onally
(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)].
2. The Statement of defence may include a Counterclaim for revoca􀆟on [Rule 25.1].
3. If a Counterclaim for revoca􀆟on is lodged:
(a) the claimant and any proprietor who becomes a party pursuant to Rule 25.2 (hereina􀅌er in this
Rule 12 and Rules 29 to 32, “the proprietor”) shall lodge a Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation [Rule 29(a)], which may include an Applica􀆟on to amend 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)].
4. If an Application to amend the patent is lodged by the proprietor, the defendant shall lodge a
Defence to the Application to amend the patent in the Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim,
the proprietor may lodge a Reply to the Defence to the Application to amend and the defendant
may lodge a Rejoinder to such Reply [Rule 32].
5. The judge-rapporteur may allow the exchange of further written pleadings, within 􀆟me periods
to be specified [Rule 36].”
Rule 32.3 RoP:
“The proprietor may lodge a Reply to the Defence to the Applica􀆟on 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 limited to the ma􀆩ers raised in the
Reply.”
Grounds
As foreseen by Rule 12 RdP, the rules of procedure divide the written procedure into several successive
stages:
4
- 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 re-quested.
In workflow 1, the defendant in the infringement claim has the last word, in this case, NUC and
WARMCOOK.
In workflow 2, the defendant in the a􀆩ack on the validity of the patent in question has the last
word, in this case, HUROM.
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, in this case, NUC and WARMCOOK.
These workflows, with strict deadlines, are aimed to ensure the most efficient and economical
procedure before the UPC, in accordance with point 4 of the Preamble.
In particular, R 32-3 RdP in fine 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 workflow 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 written
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 judge-rapporteur notes that the Defendants rightly considered in their ultimate 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 sections:
-Section 2 “On the infringement” (p. 48 to 51) of the Claimant Rejoinder; and
-Section 3 “On the remedies” (p. 52 to 56) of the Claimant Rejoinder; and
-the supporting pieces of evidence referred to in this Section (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
parties to request further wri􀆩en submissions to the judge-rapporteur upon reasoned request.
Under R 36 RoP, the par􀆟es have the right to ask for further statements before the closure of the
written 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 􀆟meline requested by
the Applicant, the judge-rapporteur considers that HUROM’s request can be granted without affecting the timeframe of the proceedings (Interim Conference is scheduled for 11 March 2025).

Considering all these elements, the judge-rapporteur:
-Declares that arguments mentioned in sec􀆟ons 2 and 3 in HUROM’s statement of 15/01/2025
are inadmissible,
-Authorises further exchanges of wri􀆩en 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 written 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