Short Summary
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request 3) and held that Orbisk's product did not infringe the patent as so limited. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful, with some claims revoked and others upheld, and Winnow was ordered to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns European Patent EP 3198245, entitled 'A system and Method for Monitoring Food Waste,' owned by Winnow Solutions Limited, a company established on 31 May 2013 that develops and markets commercial food waste management solutions. The patent was granted on 9 December 2020, based on an international (PCT) application filed on 21 April 2015, claiming priority from US application 61/982,012 filed on 21 April 2014. The patent was in force in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy, and no opposition had been filed at the European Patent Office.
The patent claims a system (claims 1-14) and a method (claim 15) for monitoring food waste using a floor-based weight mechanism to weigh a waste receptacle between consecutive disposal events, with a processor calculating the weight of each disposal event based on differences in weight, and a user interface for categorising the food waste. The system also includes features for cleaning captured weights to detect and correct erroneous weights, and a stability controller for managing weight signal transmission.
Winnow filed an infringement claim against Orbisk B.V., and Orbisk filed a counterclaim for revocation. During the proceedings, Winnow filed applications to amend the patent (App_67881/2024) and to further amend it (App_17698/2025). An Interim Conference was held on 28 May 2025, and an oral hearing took place on 18 June 2025.
The Court found that the patent was valid only in a limited amended form corresponding to auxiliary request 3. In this limited form, the patent was not infringed by Orbisk's product. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful: some claims were revoked while others were upheld. The Court applied the principle that if a patent is considered valid only in a form which is not claimed to be infringed, the patentee shall bear the costs of the counterclaim for revocation, but if the counterclaimant seeks revocation of claims not asserted against it and those claims are upheld, a compensation of costs is in order depending on the circumstances.
In its final orders, the Court: (A) found that Orbisk did not infringe the patent as amended according to auxiliary request 3; (B) revoked the patent in its entirety as originally granted and as amended according to auxiliary requests 1 and 2; (C) ordered that the patent remain in force as amended according to auxiliary request 3; (D) ordered the Registry to send a copy of the decision to the European Patent Office and national patent offices of concerned Contracting Member States after the decision becomes final; (E) ordered Winnow Solutions Limited to pay Orbisk B.V. 85% of EUR 112,000 in legal costs, EUR 15,000 in court fees, and EUR 5,500 in expert costs, totalling EUR 112,625; and (F) dismissed a R.190 RoP application (App_11672/2025) filed by Orbisk. The decision was delivered on 13 August 2025 by Presiding Judge Edger Brinkman, legally qualified judges Margot Kokke and Petri Rinkinen, and technically qualified judge Alessandro Sanchini.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before The Hague (NL) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Winnow Solutions Limited vs Orbisk B.V. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Atlas Global Technologies GmbHvsVantiva SA a. o.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 353 901, in which Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed a patent infringement action against three Vantiva entities, and the Vantiva defendants filed a nullity counterclaim against Atlas Global Technologies GmbH and Atlas Global Technologies LLC. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the main action and the defendants withdrew the counterclaim, with both sides consenting to the respective withdrawals. The parties agreed on cost allocation and requested the court to formally terminate the proceedings and order a partial refund of court fees.
Gowling WLG (applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe LimitedvsSyngenta Limited
This decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by Gowling WLG, a law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from terminated appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) between Sumi Agro and Syngenta concerning patent EP 2 152 073. The Court held that reasoned requests for access must be directed to the relevant court instance (Court of First Instance or Court of Appeal) and must be sufficiently specified. The request was granted in part for the listed written pleadings but dismissed for exhibits (as too ambiguous) and for two application documents that did not exist in the appeal file.
CJ CheilJedang CorporationvsEppen Netherlands B.V. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3508580, owned by CJ CheilJedang Corporation. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence and a stay of proceedings, pending the claimant's own testing of previously seized samples. The Judge-Rapporteur granted a six-week extension of the SoD deadline running from the date the claimant submits its test results, and requested parties' availabilities in August for a potential case management hearing on access to seized technical documentation.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.vsOcclutech GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal in provisional measures proceedings related to European patent EP 2 387 951. The appellants, Lepu Medical entities, withdrew their appeal against a cease-and-desist injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech GmbH, and the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the appellants to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
beMatrix NVvsYaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
beMatrix NV, the proprietor of European Patent No. 3 757 442 B1 concerning a display module for temporary exhibition stands, applied for provisional measures against Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division, alleging that Yaham's "Sytaq RA" modular LED display system infringed the patent. After Yaham's CEO declined to cooperate when approached at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, the court granted the preliminary injunction ex parte. The court subsequently issued a rectification order on the same day to correct a clerical error that had mistakenly named the Applicant instead of the Defendant in the operative paragraph.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.