2025-08-13 - LD The Hague - Orbisk v. Winnow Solutions - UPC_CFI_557/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_557/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Orbisk B.V. v. Winnow Solutions Limited
Kernaussage: The Hague LD partially revoked EP 3 198 245 (food waste monitoring) and dismissed the infringement action.
2025-08-13 - LD The Hague - Orbisk
v.
Winnow Solutions - UPC_CFI_557/2024
notable
The Hague LD partially revoked EP 3 198 245 (food waste monitoring) and dismissed the infringement action. The patentee (Winnow) had conceded invalid priority, making its own promotional video the closest prior art. Claims 1 and 15 lacked inventive step — data cleaning was obvious from CGK. CR2/2A contained added matter (broad erroneous categorisation). Only CR3 (stability controller) was inventive, but no infringement was asserted under this form. Costs allocated with 15% deduction for counterclaimant attacking upheld non-asserted claims.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCInventive Step
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claims 1/15 lacked inventive step over Winnow Video + CGK. Data cleaning is basic skilled person knowledge. CR3 (stability controller) was inventive.”
Added Matter
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“CR2/2A contained added matter — broad erroneous categorisation not supported by application as filed.”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“CR2/2A insufficiently disclosed beyond bin change errors.”
Priority
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 87 EPC · derivative
“Priority conceded invalid — priority document did not disclose cleaning feature.”