ACT_36388/2024

A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING FOOD WASTE

InfringementMain Infringement ActionThe Hague LDInfringement Action—

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.

Plain-English summary

Winnow Solutions Limited brought an infringement action against Orbisk B.V. in the Hague Local Division concerning EP 3 198 245 (a food waste monitoring system). The court partially revoked the patent, maintaining it only in the narrowed form of Conditional Request 3 (which adds a stability controller feature), and dismissed all of Winnow's infringement claims because Orbisk's system did not infringe the patent in that maintained form. Winnow was ordered to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs (EUR 112,625 total).

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

If patent valid only in a form not claimed to be infringed, patentee bears costs of counterclaim for revocation
RespondentLegal basis: R. 118.5 RoP
Note: The Hague LD articulated the cost allocation principle: where revocation succeeds partially and the surviving claim form is not the form asserted as infringed, patentee bears costs of the revocation proceedings.
Partial revocation — EP 3 198 245 as granted invalid; maintained only in form of Conditional Request 3
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1) EPC
Note: Court revoked the patent as granted and maintained it only in Conditional Request 3 form, which added a 'stability controller' feature absent from the asserted claims.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Orbisk's food waste monitoring system infringes EP 3 198 245
Claimant
Reason: Patent found not infringed in the form maintained by the court (Conditional Request 3); all infringement claims dismissed.
R. 190 RoP application for document production
ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 190 RoP
Reason: Application dismissed (no further reasoning visible in excerpt).

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

Cost allocation where patent valid only in non-asserted amended form: patentee bears revocation costs Compensation of costs where counter-claimant sought revocation of non-asserted claims that were upheld Partial revocation maintains patent in amended claim form under Art. 65 UPCA

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The patent as granted covered a food waste monitoring system with an industrial washable floor scale. The court maintained the patent only in Conditional Request 3, which added a 'stability controller configured to receive weight signals from the floor scale, detect weight changes and control transmission of weight signals to the processor based upon stability of the weight signal' — with the stability period generated based on the magnitude of change in the weight signal. Orbisk's system was not found to infringe this narrowed claim form.