UPC Decides Aarke AB Infringement on SodaStream Patent

Dec 12, 2024 | Northern Virginia Graphics, Inc.

The Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Local Division in Düsseldorf recently rendered a significant decision in a patent infringement case involving SodaStream Industries Ltd. and Aarke AB. The patent in question, European Patent EP 1 793 917 B1, protects a SodaStream device designed for carbonating liquids designed with a movable flask, filling head, and locking mechanism. SodaStream accused Aarke of infringing this patent with its “Carbonator Pro” product. In its ruling, the UPC found in favor of SodaStream, reinforcing the importance of clear claim interpretation and the limited scope of the Gillette defense in patent infringement cases.

Central to Aarke’s defense was the invocation of the “Gillette defense,” a legal argument that asserts a patent cannot be infringed if the alleged invention is already disclosed in prior art. Originating from a 1913 UK case involving Gillette razors, this defense suggests that patents are meant to protect new, inventive ideas, and if a product replicates technology already known, it does not infringe. The defense is based on the premise that if the alleged infringement involves prior art, the patent may be invalid or unenforceable.

Aarke argued that its “Carbonator Pro” product was based on prior art and therefore did not infringe SodaStream’s patent. However, the court rejected this defense, noting that the Gillette defense is not applicable unless the defendant has formally challenged the validity of the patent through a counterclaim for revocation. In this case, Aarke did not contest the patent’s validity, and as such, the court assessed infringement based on the claims of the patent, as interpreted through its description and drawings. The court emphasized that the scope of a European patent is defined by the claims themselves, and the patent’s description and drawings serve to clarify and guide the interpretation of those claims.

In its ruling, the court granted SodaStream an injunction, prohibiting Aarke from selling, distributing, or offering the “Carbonator Pro” in any of the jurisdictions covered by the UPC, which include Austria, Belgium, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, and Sweden. Additionally, Aarke was ordered to provide detailed information about its infringing activities, including the origin and distribution channels of the infringing products, as well as the quantities produced, imported, and sold. The court also ordered Aarke to pay provisional damages of €250,000 to cover SodaStream’s litigation costs.

The decision highlights several key aspects of the UPC’s approach to patent infringement cases. First, it underscores the UPC’s strict interpretation of patent claims, emphasizing that the claims themselves, along with the description and drawings, determine the scope of protection. This reinforces the principle that patents are granted based on the claims, and defenses like the Gillette defense are only viable when validity is challenged directly. Second, the ruling emphasizes the importance of drafting clear and comprehensive patent claims that fully encompass the inventive features of a product, as these claims are critical in determining infringement.

 Source: Proceeding Decision | Unified Patent Court