It sounds like you're asking different questions. The answer to the second question is that the inner product is first defined on pure tensors (those which are the tensor product of two vectors) and then extended by linearity, so
$$\langle u_1 \otimes u_2 + x_1 \otimes x_2, v_1 \otimes v_2 \rangle = \langle u_1 \otimes u_2, v_1 \otimes v_2 \rangle + \langle x_1 \otimes x_2, v_1 \otimes v_2 \rangle.$$
The answer to the first question is that a sum of pure tensors can be written as a pure tensor iff at least one of $H_1$ and $H_2$ are one-dimensional. One direction is straightforward. In the other, if $\dim H_1$ and $\dim H_2$ are both greater than $1$, then any element of $H_1 \otimes H_2$ defines a linear operator $H_2^{\ast} \to H_1$ via tensor contraction: that is, tensor contraction gives a natural map
$$(H_1 \otimes H_2) \otimes H_2^{\ast} \cong H_1 \otimes (H_2 \otimes H_2^{\ast}) \to H_1.$$
The pure tensors describe maps of rank at most $1$ (exercise), and if $\dim H_1$ and $\dim H_2$ are both greater than $1$ then it is easy to write down linear maps $H_2^{\ast} \to H_1$ of rank greater than $1$.
In quantum mechanics, this observation leads to the important phenomenon of quantum entanglement.
Before meeting the cross product, students will have already met the dot product. This is a form of multiplication that takes two vectors and gives you a scalar. It's natural to wonder whether there's also some kind of multiplication that takes two vectors and gives you another vector.
Obviously we could just write down any old function and call it "the cross product". But in order for it to actually be a nice form of multiplication there are a few properties that we would expect it to have:
$$\begin{align*}
(\lambda\mathbf u) \times \mathbf v=\lambda(\mathbf u \times \mathbf v)=\mathbf u \times (\lambda\mathbf v)\\
\mathbf u \times (\mathbf v+\mathbf w)=\mathbf u \times \mathbf v+\mathbf u \times \mathbf w\\
(\mathbf u + \mathbf v)\times\mathbf w=\mathbf u \times \mathbf w+\mathbf v \times \mathbf w
\end{align*}$$
(these properties are called "being bilinear").
There's one more property that we require in order for the cross product to make sense geometrically, which is that it shouldn't depend on which way you are looking at your problem. If we rotate our vectors and then take their cross product we should get the same answer as if we take their cross product and then rotate. Otherwise people looking at the same problem from different angles would get different answers! In symbols we represent the rotation by some orthogonal matrix $M$ with determinant $1$, and say that for each such matrix we want the following property:
$$M(\mathbf u\times\mathbf v)=(M\mathbf u)\times(M\mathbf v)$$
(This is called "invariance" or sometimes "covariance". Notice that the dot product also makes geometric sense in this way. If you rotate two vectors and then take their dot product you get the same answer as you would have gotten before the rotation. Or in other words $(M\mathbf u)\cdot(M\mathbf v)=u\cdot v$.)
Now here's the clever bit: I claim that the cross product is the only function with these properties. This explains why the cross product is interesting: it's the only form of multiplication that makes any sense at all! (Actually there are also the functions like $\lambda\mathbf u\times\mathbf v$ that are just scalings of the cross product by some factor, but each of these functions can be written in terms of any of the others and so we can just pick the usual cross product to be our favourite, and work in terms of that.)
Proof
I'll show that if we have a function, $\times$, that is bilinear and invariant (i.e. it obeys the four equations listed above) then it is in fact the cross product. We'll work in terms of the usual basis vectors $\mathbf i$, $\mathbf j$ and $\mathbf k$.
First we'll try to work out what $\mathbf i \times \mathbf j$ is. Let $M$ be the rotation of $180^\circ$ about the $k$-axis. Then $M\mathbf i=-\mathbf i$ and $M\mathbf j=-\mathbf j$. So we have
$$M(\mathbf i \times \mathbf j)=(M\mathbf i)\times(M\mathbf j)=(-\mathbf i)\times(-\mathbf j)=\mathbf i\times\mathbf j$$
(the last step used bilinearity to move the minus signs out so they could cancel). This means that $\mathbf i \times \mathbf j$ is fixed by the rotation $M$, and so must lie on the $\mathbf k$-axis. As I said before, we're going to allow ourselves to pick our favourite scaling, so since we know $\mathbf i \times \mathbf j$ is on the $\mathbf k$-axis we might as well assume that $\mathbf i \times \mathbf j=\mathbf k$.
There's a rotation (of $120^\circ$ about $\mathbf i+\mathbf j+\mathbf k$) that takes $\mathbf i$ to $\mathbf j$, $\mathbf j$ to $\mathbf k$, and $\mathbf k$ to $\mathbf i$. Applying invariance under this matrix to our equation $\mathbf i \times \mathbf j=\mathbf k$ gives us $\mathbf j \times \mathbf k=\mathbf i$. Applying it again gives $\mathbf k \times \mathbf i=\mathbf j$.
There's also a rotation (of $180^\circ$ about $\mathbf i+\mathbf j$) that takes $\mathbf i$ to $\mathbf j$, $\mathbf j$ to $\mathbf i$, and $\mathbf k$ to $-\mathbf k$. Applying invariance under this matrix to our equation $\mathbf i \times \mathbf j=\mathbf k$ gives us $\mathbf j \times \mathbf i=-\mathbf k$. Similarly we have $\mathbf k \times \mathbf j=-\mathbf i$ and $\mathbf i \times \mathbf k=-\mathbf j$.
Finally we want to know what $\mathbf i \times \mathbf i$ is. Let $M$ be the $180^\circ$ rotation about the $\mathbf k$-axis, as before. Then
$$M(\mathbf i \times \mathbf i)=(M\mathbf i)\times(M\mathbf i)=(-\mathbf i)\times(-\mathbf i)=\mathbf i\times\mathbf i$$
so $\mathbf i \times \mathbf i$ is fixed by $M$ and therefore lies on the $\mathbf k$-axis. But the same argument applied with a rotation about the $\mathbf j$-axis shows that $\mathbf i \times \mathbf i$ lies on the $\mathbf j$-axis too! These two axes only intersect at $\mathbf 0$. So $\mathbf i \times \mathbf i=\mathbf 0$ and by the same argument $\mathbf j \times \mathbf j=\mathbf 0$ and $\mathbf k \times \mathbf k=\mathbf 0$.
Now since we know how to cross product any two basis vectors we can calculate the cross product of any two vectors by multiplying out (using bilinearity):
$$\begin{align*}(u_i\mathbf i+u_j\mathbf j+u_k\mathbf k)\times(v_i\mathbf i+v_j\mathbf j+v_k\mathbf k)= &u_iv_i\mathbf i\times\mathbf i+u_iv_j\mathbf i\times\mathbf j+u_iv_k\mathbf i\times\mathbf k\\
+&u_jv_i\mathbf j\times\mathbf i+u_jv_j\mathbf j\times\mathbf j+u_jv_k\mathbf j\times\mathbf k\\
+&u_kv_i\mathbf k\times\mathbf i+u_kv_j\mathbf k\times\mathbf j+u_kv_k\mathbf k\times\mathbf k\\
=(u_jv_k-u_kv_j)\mathbf i+(u_kv_i-u_iv_k)&\mathbf j+(u_iv_j-u_jv_i)\mathbf k
\end{align*}$$
This is the formula for the cross product.
The above was a rewrite of my original answer which said more or less the same thing as above but in more formal terms. I'll put my original answer here because I think some people reading this might like to see the technical details:
Given a $3$-dimensional oriented real inner-product space $V$ the group of symmetries preserving the inner-product and orientation is $\mathrm{SO}(V)$. The invariant tensors under $\mathrm{SO}(V)$ are $\delta_{ij}$, $\delta^{ij}$, and $\varepsilon_{ijk}$, along with the things they generate like $\delta^{ij}\varepsilon_{klm}$ and so on.
The tensors $\delta_{ij}$ and $\delta^{ij}$ are the inner-product and the inner-product induced on the dual space. These aren't very interesting because we defined $\mathrm{SO}(V)$ to preserve these, so we already knew that we were going to get them. But the tensor $\varepsilon_{ijk}$ is in some sense new. Therefore we are motivated to investigate $\varepsilon_{ijk}$ or equivalently the bilinear map $V\times V\rightarrow V$ given by $(v\times w)^i=\delta^{ij}\varepsilon_{jkl}v^kw^l$. This is the cross product.
Best Answer
For a multilinear mapping, it suffices to consider its Frechet derivative. Let $W$ be an $n$-D vector space, and each $V_i$ be an $m_i$-D vector space with $i=1,2,...,N$. Let $f:V_1\times V_2\times\cdots\times V_N\to W$ be multilinear. Then $\forall\left(v_1,v_2,...,v_N\right)\in V_1\times V_2\times\cdots\times V_N$, the Frechet derivative of $f$ at this location, denoted by $({\rm d}f)(v_1,v_2,...,v_N)$, is also a multilinear mapping, i.e., $$ ({\rm d}f)(v_1,v_2,...,v_N):V_1\times V_2\times\cdots\times V_N\to W. $$ According to Frechet, it follows that \begin{align} &({\rm d}f)(v_1,v_2,...,v_N)(h_1,h_2,...,h_N)\\ &=f(h_1,a_2,...,a_N)\\ &+f(a_1,h_2,...,a_N)\\ &+\cdots\\ &+f(a_1,a_2,...,h_N). \end{align}
Recall that, if $g$ is linear, its entry-wise form reads $$ g_i(v)=\sum_ja_{ij}v_j, $$ and if $g$ is bilinear, its entry-wise form reads $$ g_i(v_1,v_2)=\sum_{j_1,j_2}a_{ij_1j_2}v_{1j_1}v_{2j_2}. $$ Inductively and formally, the above multilinear $f$ observes the following entry-wise form $$ f_i(v_1,v_2,...,v_N)=\sum_{j_1=1}^{m_1}\sum_{j_2=1}^{m_2}\cdots\sum_{j_N=1}^{m_N}a_{ij_1j_2...j_N}v_{1j_1}v_{2j_2}...v_{Nj_N} $$ for $i=1,2,...,m$, where each $v_{kj_k}$ denotes the $j_k$-th entry of $v_k\in V_k$, while $a_{ij_1j_2...j_N}$'s are the coefficients of $f$.
Thanks to this entry-wise form, we may then write down the entry-wise form of ${\rm d}f$ as well, which reads \begin{align} &({\rm d}f)_i(v_1,v_2,...,v_N)(h_1,h_2,...,h_N)\\ &=\sum_{j_1=1}^{m_1}\sum_{j_2=1}^{m_2}\cdots\sum_{j_N=1}^{m_N}a_{ij_1j_2...j_N}h_{1j_1}v_{2j_2}...v_{Nj_N}\\ &+\sum_{j_1=1}^{m_1}\sum_{j_2=1}^{m_2}\cdots\sum_{j_N=1}^{m_N}a_{ij_1j_2...j_N}v_{1j_1}h_{2j_2}...v_{Nj_N}\\ &+\cdots\\ &+\sum_{j_1=1}^{m_1}\sum_{j_2=1}^{m_2}\cdots\sum_{j_N=1}^{m_N}a_{ij_1j_2...j_N}v_{1j_1}v_{2j_2}...h_{Nj_N}. \end{align} In other words, as $a_{ij_1j_2...j_N}$'s are known, the entry-wise form of ${\rm d}f$ could be expressed straightforwardly as above.
Finally, the "$+$" in OP's original post, i.e., $(h_1+h_2+\cdots+h_N)$, is a convention in some context, which is exactly $(h_1,h_2,...,h_N)$ here. When there is free of ambiguity, both expressions can be used as per ones preference.