SodaStream v Aarke (UPC_CFI_373/2023)
Decision date:
31 October 2024
Osborne Clarke summary
- Aarke was found to have infringed SodaStream's patent relating to a device for carbonating liquids. The validity of the patent was not in dispute, although Aarke did attempt to rely on a Gillette defence to infringement (in short, that the alleged infringing act was actually disclosed in a prior art document).
- The Düsseldorf LD confirmed that the claim is the decisive basis for determining the patent scope but it should always be interpreted in the context of the description and the drawings. On this basis, the court rejected a literal reading to narrow the claim scope based on a preferred embodiment.
- The court stated that prior art should only be considered in relation to claim construction to the extent it is referenced in the patent. If the patent distinguishes itself from the prior art in a particular way, an interpretation negating that must be avoided. In this case, the court took into account the distinction from the prior art in detail and, as such, there was no room for the Gillette defence to be used in the way in which the defendant had tried.
- SodaStream's request for publication of the decision pursuant to Article 80 UPCA (publication in the public media) was rejected by the court on the basis that the injunction and damages awarded were a sufficient remedy. The court found that it was not apparent that the patent infringement had caused any lasting uncertainty among consumers that publication in the public media would need to remove.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.