UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 373/2023

Oct 18, 2023·EP1793917 · A DEVICE FOR CARBONATING A LIQUID WITH PRESSURIZED GAS

Action number: ACT 580849/2023

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Chemical engineering
  • Mechanical engineering
    Handling
Language
English
First decided
Jan 16, 2024
Last decision
Oct 31, 2024
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge András KupeczLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked

At the UPC: SodaStream Industries Ltd. (7 cases)·Aarke AB (6 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

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

Decisions
  • 2024-10-31
    Infringement 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
    Public

    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
    Public

    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
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-10-31Not public
DecisionOutcome2024-10-31Not public
Decision on the merits2024-10-31Public
580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S032024-10-17Not public
580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S012024-10-17Not public
580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S022024-10-17Not public
580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S032024-10-17Not public
580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S012024-10-17Not public
580849/2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC20241015930AM/S022024-10-17Not public
Receipt2024-10-14Not public
Receipt2024-10-14Not public
Request to amend the claims2024-10-14Not public
Provisional estimate of the costs of the proceedings2024-10-14Not public
Receipt2024-10-14Not public
Receipt2024-10-14Not public
R. 9 Documents - 20241014 - signed2024-10-14Not public
Oral Hearing UPC LD Dusseldorf 20241015 FINAL 202410142024-10-14Not public
Provisional estimate of the costs of the proceedings2024-10-14Not public
interimProcedureClosure2024-10-10Not public
summons2024-10-10Not public
Technical reasons2024-10-10Public
Hearing-Dates2024-10-10Not public
Order R. 104, 110 - Closure of interim procedure2024-10-10Public
writtenProcedureClosure2024-10-10Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-10-10Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-10-10Not public
Order Request denied2024-10-10Public
Receipt2024-10-09Not public
Request for Adjournment2024-10-08Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-10-02Not public
Application2024-10-02Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-09-06Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-09-06Not public
2024-09-06 Order Panel2024-09-06Public
Statement2024-09-04Not public
Opportunity to comment Claimant2024-08-21Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-08-21Not public
Request for Review2024-08-20Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-08-05Not public
Order R. 158 RoP2024-08-05Public
Comment on security for costs2024-06-29Not public
2024-06-142024-06-14Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-06-07Not public
Rejoinder2024-06-07Not public
Hearing-Dates2024-05-24Not public
Set Date Oral Hearing2024-05-24Public
Template-Order2024-05-24Not public
Comment on preliminary order2024-05-20Not public
Comment on Preliminary Order2024-05-20Not public
2024-05-13 Pre Order Schedule Hearing2024-05-13Not public
Hearing-Dates2024-05-13Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-05-07Not public
Exhibit HL 242024-05-07Not public
Reply to statement of defense2024-05-07Not public
Exhibit HL 252024-05-07Not public
Exhibit HL 232024-05-07Not public
Exhibit HL 222024-05-07Not public
Exhibit HL 272024-05-07Not public
Exhibit HL 262024-05-07Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-03-07Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 502024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 462024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 42024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 252024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 392024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 372024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 32024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 112024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 212024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 402024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 292024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 362024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 152024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 332024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 302024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 432024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 242024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 262024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 162024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 142024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 492024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 122024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 442024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 62024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 272024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 472024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 22024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 102024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 352024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 312024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 342024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 182024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 132024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 202024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 52024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 282024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 12024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 382024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 192024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 412024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 232024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 172024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 422024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 92024-02-29Not public
Statement of Defence2024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 452024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 222024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 322024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 482024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 82024-02-29Not public
Exhibit AA 72024-02-29Not public
Extension of the time limit for lodging the Statement of defence2024-01-25Not public
Comment on Preliminary Order2024-01-23Not public
Statement on R 9 RoP order2024-01-23Not public
Order Define time period SoD2024-01-20Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-01-19Not public
Order President CFI2024-01-19Not public
Stellungnahme gemaess Regel 264 VO2023-12-18Not public
Prl Order PCFI - Claimant´s invitation to comment EN_DE2023-12-07Not public
Receipt2023-12-04Not public
Application for a change of language2023-12-04Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2023-11-16Not public
Notification Of Service2023-10-30Not public
Zustellungsnachweis Aarke AB Infringement2023-10-30Not public
epoUploadDocumentsWorkflow2023-10-25Not public
Document from EPO2023-10-24Not public
Letter for Service2023-10-19Not public
Panel-Appointment2023-10-19Not public
EPO-Request-for-case-pending2023-10-19Not public
Receipt2023-10-19Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2023-10-19Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2023-10-17Not public
Anlagenkonvolut HL 182023-10-17Not public
SodaStream Aarke Klage EN Übersetzung2023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 42023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 92023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 22023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 112023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 152023-10-17Not public
Anlagenkonvolut HL 122023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 52023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 32023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 72023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 132023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 212023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 192023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 172023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 202023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 12023-10-17Not public
SodaStream vs Aarke Klage2023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 62023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 82023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 162023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 102023-10-17Not public
Anlage HL 142023-10-17Not public
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.