UPC CFI 327/2024
Jun 18, 2024·EP3198245 · A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING FOOD WASTE
Action number: ACT 36388/2024
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (No infringement)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Winnow Solutions LimitedOperating co.
Respondents- Orbisk B.V.Operating co.
Representatives- Roeland Grijpink-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Michiel de Baat-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Theo Blomme-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Niels Zelders-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Anouschka Heemskerk-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Division
- The Hague LD
- Technology
- InstrumentsMeasurement
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Aug 13, 2025
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| The Hague LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Edger Brinkman | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Petri Rinkinen | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Margot Kokke | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Alessandro Sanchini | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Winnow Solutions Limited (4 cases)·Orbisk B.V. (4 cases)
This dispute contains 3 other proceedings
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: The Hague LD·2024
- 2024-10-14Procedural OrderPublic
Summary: Order from The Hague Local Division dated 14 October 2024 partially granting Winnow Solutions Limited's request to produce evidence under R. 190 RoP in its infringement action against Orbisk B.V. The court found a prima facie case of infringement of EP 3 198 245 B1 and ordered Orbisk to produce certain documents, but limited the scope as the original request was too broad. Non-infringement and invalidity arguments were reserved for full panel evaluation. Orbisk was granted a period to file a R. 262A motion and access to the produced documents was restricted to Winnow's legal representatives.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Order to produce evidence under R. 190 RoP
- Prima facie infringement assessment
- Proportionality of evidence request
- Confidentiality of produced documents under R. 262A RoP
- 2024-08-06
Summary: The Hague Local Division issued a procedural order granting defendant Orbisk B.V. an extension to respond to Winnow Solutions Limited's evidence production request (R. 190 RoP) until 6 September 2024 (one week beyond the three-week period previously granted and the four-week extension Winnow agreed to), rather than allowing Orbisk to defer its response until its Statement of Defence on 27 September 2024. The extension was granted solely on account of the summer holiday period.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Extension of time limit (R. 9.3 RoP)
- Production of evidence request (R. 190 RoP / Art. 59 UPCA)
- Timing of response relative to Statement of Defence
- —revocation counterclaim
Summary: In the main infringement claim: A. Dismisses the orders sought by Winnow, B. Orders Winnow Solutions Limited to pay Orbisk B.V. the sum of EUR 112,000 as legal costs and EUR 5,500 as expert costs incurred by Orbisk, In the counterclaim for revocation: C. Revokes European patent EP 3198245 as granted in the contracting member states of the UPCA and maintains the patent in the contracting member states of the UPCA in a form according to Conditional Request 3:
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-08-13 | Not public |
| 20250813 Winnow_Orbisk final signed-anon | 2025-08-13 | Not public |
| 20250813 Winnow_Orbisk final signed-anon | 2025-08-13 | Not public |
| DecisionOutcome | 2025-08-13 | Not public |
| final decision | 2025-08-13 | Public |
| final decision | 2025-08-13 | Public |
| final decision | 2025-08-13 | Not public |
| ORAL_HEARING_REFERENCING_36388_2024_OH_HAG_LOC_UPC2025061810am | 2025-06-25 | Not public |
| ORAL_HEARING_REFERENCING_36388_2024_OH_HAG_LOC_UPC2025061810am | 2025-06-25 | Not public |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-06-17 | Not public |
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).
If patent valid only in a form not claimed to be infringed, patentee bears costs of counterclaim for revocation
RespondentLegal basis: R. 118.5 RoPNote: 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) EPCNote: 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.
Orbisk's food waste monitoring system infringes EP 3 198 245
ClaimantReason: 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 RoPReason: Application dismissed (no further reasoning visible in excerpt).
Browse other cases on this principle.
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.