UPC CFI 373/2023
Oct 18, 2023·EP1793917 · A DEVICE FOR CARBONATING A LIQUID WITH PRESSURIZED GAS
Action number: ACT 580849/2023
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent infringed)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- SodaStream Industries Ltd.Operating co.
Representatives- Alexander Klicznik-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Andreas von Falck-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Diana Rodriguez-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Lea Gröblinghoff-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Lars-Fabian Blumesupporting-Hogan Lovells International LLP
Respondents- Aarke ABOperating co.
Representatives- Jens Olsson-Gulliksson
- Magnus Dahlman-Gulliksson
- Emelie Rexelius-Gulliksson
- Christian Arkelius-Gulliksson
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technology
- ChemistryChemical engineering
- Mechanical engineeringHandling
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Jan 16, 2024
- Last decision
- Oct 31, 2024
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Berenice Thom | Locked | Locked |
| Judge András Kupecz | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Ronny Thomas | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: SodaStream Industries Ltd. (7 cases)·Aarke AB (6 cases)
This dispute contains 5 other proceedings
UPC CoA 844/2024·UPC CFI 759/2024·UPC CoA 548/2024·UPC APP 47922/2024·UPC APP 55249/2024
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2023
- 2024-10-31Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Patent infringement
- Claim interpretation
- Preferred embodiments
- Gillette defence
- Publication of decisions
- 2024-08-05
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Security for costs (R. 158 RoP)
- Enforcement of UPC cost order against non-EU claimant
- Solvency vs willingness to pay
- 2024-01-16
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2024-10-31 | Not public |
| DecisionOutcome | 2024-10-31 | Not public |
| Decision on the merits | 2024-10-31 | Public |
| 580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S03 | 2024-10-17 | Not public |
| 580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S01 | 2024-10-17 | Not public |
| 580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S02 | 2024-10-17 | Not public |
| 580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S03 | 2024-10-17 | Not public |
| 580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S01 | 2024-10-17 | Not public |
| 580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S02 | 2024-10-17 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2024-10-14 | Not public |
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.
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) EPCNote: 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) EPCNote: 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 EPCNote: The court found infringement established and granted SodaStream an injunction against Aarke.
Gillette defence (accused product is prior art or obvious modification thereof, therefore non-infringing)
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPCReason: 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) EPCReason: 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 UPCAReason: 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.
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.