UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

ACT 580849/2023

—·EP1793917: A DEVICE FOR CARBONATING A LIQUID WITH PRESSURIZED GAS

Case details
Status
—
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Andreas von Falck (Hogan Lovells International LLP); Alexander Klicznik (Hogan Lovells International LLP); Diana Rodriguez (Hogan Lovells International LLP); Lea Gröblinghoff (Hogan Lovells International LLP); Lars-Fabian Blume (Hogan Lovells International LLP)
Respondents
Reps: Jens Olsson (Gulliksson); Magnus Dahlman (Gulliksson); Emelie Rexelius (Gulliksson); Christian Arkelius (Gulliksson)
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
Consumer Goods · Kitchen Appliances
Language
—
First decided
Oct 31, 2024
Decisions
  • 2024-10-31
    Permanent injunctionInfringement meritsInfringement Action

    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.

    Legal issues:Patent infringementClaim interpretationPreferred embodimentsGillette defencePublication of decisions
Documents
  • 12B00A054880DFB4BA96F63CB766A530_en.pdf2024-10-31EN
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(1) EPC

    Note: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(1) EPC

    Note: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

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

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Gillette defence (accused product is prior art or obvious modification thereof, therefore non-infringing)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

    Reason: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69(1) EPC

    Reason: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 64 UPCA

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
claim scope not limited to preferred embodimentsdescription and drawings as interpretation material, not prior artGillette defencepurposive claim constructionpublication of decision as punitive measure requiring justification beyond injunction

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.