UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 373/2023

18. Okt. 2023·EP1793917 · A DEVICE FOR CARBONATING A LIQUID WITH PRESSURIZED GAS

Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 580849/2023

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Technologie
  • Chemistry
    Chemical engineering
  • Mechanical engineering
    Handling
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
16. Jan. 2024
Letzte Entscheidung
31. Okt. 2024
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Berenice ThomGesperrtGesperrt
Richter András KupeczGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ronny ThomasGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: SodaStream Industries Ltd. (7 Verfahren)·Aarke AB (6 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 2024-10-31
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division found that SodaStream's patent EP 1 793 917 was infringed by Aarke AB and issued an injunction along with ancillary relief. The defendant was ordered to bear the full costs of the litigation; the value in dispute was set at EUR 3,000,000.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Patent infringement
    • Claim interpretation
    • Preferred embodiments
    • Gillette defence
    • Publication of decisions
  • 2024-08-05

    Zusammenfassung: Order by Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_373/2023, 5 August 2024) dismissing Aarke AB's application for security for costs against SodaStream (Israeli company). The court held that the mere alleged future non-compliance with a cost order does not justify security; claimant's solvency was not in doubt and the absence of an international enforcement treaty alone was insufficient.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Security for costs (R. 158 RoP)
    • Enforcement of UPC cost order against non-EU claimant
    • Solvency vs willingness to pay
  • 2024-01-16

    Zusammenfassung: The President of the Court of First Instance granted Aarke AB's application to change the language of the Düsseldorf infringement proceedings from German to English (the language in which EP1793917 was granted), finding a significant imbalance between the parties given Aarke's status as a smaller Swedish company and considerations of fair access to justice.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Rule 323 RoP: change of language of proceedings to language of patent grant
    • Fair access to justice for SMEs
    • Admissibility conditions for language change application
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-10-31Nicht öffentlich
DecisionOutcome2024-10-31Nicht öffentlich
Decision on the merits2024-10-31Öffentlich
580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S032024-10-17Nicht öffentlich
580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S012024-10-17Nicht öffentlich
580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S022024-10-17Nicht öffentlich
580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S032024-10-17Nicht öffentlich
580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S012024-10-17Nicht öffentlich
580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S022024-10-17Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2024-10-14Nicht öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

SodaStream sued Aarke AB for infringement of its carbonation device patent EP 1 793 917. The Düsseldorf Local Division found infringement, rejecting Aarke's attempt to limit the claim to preferred embodiments shown in specific drawings and Aarke's Gillette defence. The court established that claim interpretation relies on the patent document itself (claims, description, drawings) and not on prior art, and that a single drawing cannot restrict the broader claim scope supported by the description as a whole.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • Claim must not be limited to preferred embodiments; scope extends to what skilled person understands as the patentee's claim after interpretation using description and drawings

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(1) EPC

    Hinweis: The Düsseldorf Local Division upheld SodaStream's claim interpretation, rejecting any limitation of the claim to specific shapes shown in drawings.

  • Prior art is not admissible as claim interpretation material unless discussed in the patent description itself

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(1) EPC

    Hinweis: The court held that claim construction is determined from the patent itself (claims, description, drawings) and prior art may only be relevant where the patent description expressly discusses it.

  • Patent EP 1 793 917 is infringed by Aarke AB's carbonating devices

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC

    Hinweis: The court found infringement established and granted SodaStream an injunction against Aarke.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • Gillette defence (accused product is prior art or obvious modification thereof, therefore non-infringing)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC

    Begründung: The Gillette defence was rejected; the court found the defendant's carbonating device fell within the patent scope as properly construed.

  • Claim should be limited to the specific shape shown in a particular drawing

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(1) EPC

    Begründung: A claim interpretation limited by a single drawing showing a specific component shape is not supported where the description and drawings as a whole support a broader interpretation.

  • Right to publication of the decision should be granted

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 64 UPCA

    Begründung: Publication was refused because it is a punitive measure and only appropriate where the claimant's protection is not effectively ensured by other ordered measures; here, other remedies were sufficient.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The court interpreted EP 1 793 917 (device for carbonating liquid with pressurized gas) expansively, rejecting any limitation of the claim to the specific shapes shown in individual drawings. It applied Art. 69(1) EPC, holding that the outer limit of protection is defined by the claims as interpreted in light of the description and drawings as a whole, and that prior art cannot be used as an interpretation tool unless discussed in the patent description.