UPC_CFI_327/2024; UPC_CFI_557/2024 – Winnow v Orbisk

Expert Commentary

Decision on the merits Facts Winnow sues Orbisk for infringement. Orbisk denies infringement and files a counterclaim for revocation. The Court 1. Claim interpretation: the Local Division cites Court of Appeal re Nanostring v 10x Genomics of 26 February (11 March) 2024 and refers also to G1/24 of the Enlarged Board. 2. Parties more or less agreed on the skilled person. 3. The Court ruled that the claim element “cleaning calculated weights” should be given a very broad meaning and can present any type of cleaning relating to weights and/or categorising. 4. The patentee agreed that it could not rely on priority because the priority document did not contain the invention as claimed. 5. During the interim conference, it was decided not to decide on the R. 190 RoP request (Evidentiary Seizure with respect to alleged prior public use) and decide on it during or after oral argument. In view of the non-infringement outcome the request is not relevant anymore and is dismissed. 6. With respect to inventive step the Court holds the following in no. 35: "According to Art. 56 EPC... As a tool to assess whether a claimed invention was obvious to a Skilled Person, the Court will follow the problem and solution approach (“PSA”) as suggested by the parties and as also used by the EPO and the Munich Local Division. Given that parties followed the PSA, the Court need not decide if the PSA is the (only) approach to be followed. Any approach in fact would render the same result in this case..." 7. The Court decides based also on the broad interpretation of “cleaning” that the patent is invalid. The first and second auxiliary requests are equally invalid. The third auxiliary request is valid but it is not infringed. Decision: infringement claim dismissed. 8. Costs (agreed by the parties but parties left it to the Court to decide the split in case of partial victory) in favour of Orbisk: 100% for infringement and 85% for the revocation. Comment 1. If you defend a broad meaning of a claim element because you want to argue infringement, then such broad meaning is also the starting point in invalidity proceedings. In this case this leads to invalidity and the infringement did not have to be discussed anymore. 2. The Court applies the problem solution approach (PSA) because the parties also used this to discuss the revocation. The Court expressed (different from the Local Division in Munich) that it left open the question whether or not it was obliged to apply the PSA. It added that a different approach would have led to the same result. This makes it a convincing decision while leaving it for the Court of Appeal to decide what test to apply with respect to infringement. I hope that the Court of Appeal is not going to make the PSA the compulsory approach (which is also not the case at the EPO), but will give guidelines on how to decide about Art. 6 EPC as it did with respect to claim interpretation, while not excluding the PSA. 3. Parties agreed about costs leaving it to the Court to make the decision if there was a partial judgment (like here with respect to validity). No cost procedure necessary. That is exactly what parties should do. It saves their clients a lot of costs and the Court time. The Local Division of The Hague clearly promotes this. We saw the same last week with respect to the security of costs.

Full Decision Text

1 DECISION ON THE MERITS of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division The Hague delivered on 13 August 2025 concerning EP 3198245 HEADNOTES: 1. If the 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. However, if the counter claimant seeks revocation of claims not asserted against it, and those claims are upheld, a compensation of costs is in order, depending on the circumstances. KEYWORDS: Infringement, partial revocation, cost decision CLAIMANT Winnow Solutions Limited, 100 Avebury Boulevard - MK9 1FH - Milton Keynes - GB Referred to as “Winnow” Represented by: Bristows LLP - Gregory Bacon - Peter Myles Jelf - Eden Winlow DEFENDANT Orbisk B.V. Kanaalweg 29 A - 3526 KM - Utrecht - NL Referred to as “Orbisk” UPC_CFI_327/2024 ACT_36388/2024 UPC_CFI_557/2024 CC_53523/2024 2 Represented by (at the oral hearing): Hoyng Rokh Monegier: - Roeland Grijpink - Theo Blomme - Niels Zelders - Anouschka Heemskerk PATENT AT ISSUE European patent EP 3198245 DECIDING JUDGES Presiding judge and JR: Edger Brinkman Legally qualified judge: Margot Kokke Legally qualified judge: Petri Rinkinen Technically qualified judge: Alessandro Sanchini LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English ORAL HEARING: 18 JUNE 2025 1. For the submissions of the Parties and previous orders issued by the Court, reference is made to the case file in the Case Management System, including Winnow’s application to amend the patent (App_67881/2024) and to further amend it (App_17698/2025). 2. On 28 May 2025 the Interim Conference was held. I. SUMMARY OF FACTS 3. Winnow was established on 31 May 2013. Winnow develops and markets commercial food waste management solutions to help customers run more sustainable and profitable commercial kitchens by reducing food waste. 4. Winnow is the proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245, entitled "A system and Method for Monitoring Food Waste" (hereinafter “EP 245” or “the patent”). The patent was granted on 9 December 2020, upon an international application (PCT application) filed on 21 April 2015, claiming priority from US application 61/982,012, filed on 21 April 2014. EP 3 245 is in force in the following Contracting Member States: France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy. No opposition was filed in the European Patent Office (EPO). 5. The patent relates to a system (claims 1-14) and a method (claim 15). In the original English language of the patent, the claims are as follows: 1. A system for monitoring food waste, including: a floor-based weight mechanism configured for weighing a waste receptacle, wherein the waste receptacle is configured for receiving food waste from a plurality of consecutive disposal events before emptying the waste receptacle; a processor configured for measuring the difference in weight of the waste receptacle between consecutive disposal events of the plurality of consecutive disposal events, calculating the weight for each of the disposal events of the plurality of disposal events based upon the measured differences, and capturing the calculated weight for each disposal event; a user interface configured to receive, for each of the calculated weights, at least one indication categorising the food waste in a disposal event by a user; and a processor configured for cleaning the captured calculated weights to detect and correct erroneous weights. 2. A system as claimed in claim 1, further including a central server, and wherein weights and categorisations of disposal events are transmitted to the central server. 3. A system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the central server is configured for receiving weights and categorisations of disposal events from a plurality of locations. 4. A system as claimed in any one of claims 2 to 3, wherein the central server is configured to analyse the weights and categorisation of disposal events to generate a report. 5. A system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the report includes suggestions for reducing waste based on the analysis. 6. A system as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the weights and/or categorisations are processed to remove user error. 7. A system as claimed in claim 6, wherein the user error removal processing includes detecting erroneous weights and correcting the erroneous weights. 8. A system as claimed in claim 7, wherein erroneous weights are detected and corrected using deviations from previous and later disposal events. 9. A system as claimed in claim 8, wherein the user error removal processing includes detecting erroneous disposal events. 10. A system as claimed in claim 9, wherein pattern recognition is utilised to detect and correct erroneous disposal events. 11. A system as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the user interface is configured to receive indications from a plurality of category types. 12. A system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the category types include a stage of waste occurrence, type of waste, specific waste, and/or reason for dumping out the waste. 13. A system as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, further including a stability controller configured to receive weight signals from the weight mechanism, detecting weight changes at the weight mechanism and controlling transmission of weight signals to the processor based upon the stability of the weight signal. 4 14. A system as claimed in claim 13, wherein the stability controller is configured to determine when the weight signal is stable based on a period of time of stability where the period of time is generated based on the magnitude of change in the weight signal. 15. A method for monitoring food waste, including: a. A processor receiving a first weight from a floor-based weight mechanism of a waste receptacle after a first disposal event; b. The processor receiving a second weight from the floor-based weight mechanism of the waste receptacle after a second consecutive disposal event disposed before emptying of the waste receptacle; c. The processor determining the weight for the second disposal event based on the difference between the first and second weights; d. The processor capturing the weight for the second disposal event; e. A processor cleaning the captured weight to detect and correct erroneous weights; and f. A user interface receiving an input from a user to categorise the food waste for the second disposal event. 6. The description contains inter alia the following paragraphs: Field of Invention [0001] The present invention is in the field of food waste monitoring. More particularly, but not exclu- sively, the present invention relates to food waste monitoring in a commercial environment. Background [0002] Commercial food service operations and restaurants throw away 5-20% of the edible food they purchase. Ingredients cost approximately 1/3 of revenue for the typical player. Avoidable waste therefore represents 2-7% of revenue. In a sector where net profits are less than 10%, this can make a material dif- ference in profitability. [0003] The first step to reducing food waste is measuring it. Existing solutions come in the form of highly manual processes used to track food waste, such as weighing bags of waste at end of day. They are gener- ally hard to sustain for more than a quick audit, and can be expensive due to the auditor/consultant time required. They also tend to have less granular data on what is being thrown away, which makes them less impactful. [0004] Other solutions have been developed which are more automated and granular than the manual processes described above. [0005] One such solution is provided by Leanpath, Inc. and is described in US Patent No. 7,415,375 . In this solution, a food waste monitoring system is provided where users fill a container with a food waste and place the container on a weigh station. The weigh station records the total weight and requests detail about the food waste from the user. The container is then emptied into a waste receptacle and may be reused. The weight and data is stored and is used to analyse food waste. [0006] The disadvantage with the solution described above is that is depends on users placing food waste into the containers, weighing the containers, and recording the type of food waste. This solution is quite onerous to implement for a busy food service operation or restaurant where the users are likely to be busy kitchen staff and, consequently, this solution suffers from low compliance. This leads, therefore, to missing data on some or most food waste and an erroneous analysis of the operation's food waste. [0007] Accordingly, there is a desire for an improved waste monitoring system. 5 [0020] A processor 104 is also shown. The processor 104 is configured for receiving weight signals from the waste mechanism 101 directly or via the convertor 103. [0021] The processor 104 may receive signals from the waste mechanism 101 or convertor 103 via a sta- bility controller 105. The stability controller 105 may be configured to detect and control delivery of weight signals to the processor 104. The stability controller 105 may control transmission of weight signals based on the stability of the weight signal. Stability may be determined by the stability controller 105 us- ing a variable response time based upon the magnitude of the change between the current weight and the previous weight. For example, a threshold may be set such that if a weight change is defined as low (i.e. below a low threshold), the response time may be increased for delivering a stable weight. This may help to eliminate small fluctuations likely to be noise. When the weight change is high (i.e. above a high threshold), a weight signal may be transmitted to the processor 104, but the stability controller 105 may monitor the weight signal from the weight mechanism 101 and update the weight signal transmitted to the processor 104 to reflect a more accurate weight assessment. This may be useful, for example, when a user accidentally places their own weight on the weight mechanism when disposing food waste. The thresholds for low and high can be updated periodically and calculated based upon historical data. [0022] The processor 104 may be configured for calculating the weight for a disposal event by measuring the difference in weight of the weight receptacle 102 between each disposal event. For example, if the weight signal after a first disposal event is 1.05kg and the weight signal after a second disposal event is 1.50kg, the processor may calculate the weight for the second disposal event as 0.45kg. [0023] A user interface 106 is also shown. The user interface 106 may comprise a display 107 and an in- put 108. In one embodiment, the display 107 and input 108 may be combined such as in a touch-screen interface. The user interface 106 may comprise an audio output 109. [0024] The user interface 106 may be configured for receiving indications via the input 108 from a user to categorise the food waste in a disposal event. The user interface 106 may prompt the user via the dis- play 107 to provide indications for one or more different category types, including: a stage of waste occur- rence, type of waste, specific waste, and/or reason for dumping out the waste. The user interface 106 may use a multi-stage menu of options to prompt the user via the display 107 and receive input via 108. For example, the stage of waste occurrence could be prompted by asking the user to select one of the fol- lowing options: inventory, preparation, overproduction, or plate left-over. [0025] The user interface 106 may display in the list of options an option which automatically defines indi- cations across a plurality of category types. [0026] The system 100 may include a user identity apparatus 110 configured for obtaining the user's iden- tity. The user identity apparatus 110 may include a camera 111. The user identity apparatus 110 may ob- tain the user's identity automatically, for example, via facial recognition using the camera 111, or via prox- imity of a user's physical identifier, such as a RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) via a RFID reader. In an al- ternative embodiment, the user interface 106 may be configured for obtaining the user's identity, for ex- ample, by receiving a user code via the input 108. [0040] In step 205, the captured weights and/or associated categorisations for the disposal event may be cleaned, for example, to remove user error. [0041] The cleaning may include the detection and correction of erroneous weights and/or categorisa- tions. [0042] In one embodiment, erroneous weights are detected and corrected using deviations from histori- cally captured data such as previous and/or later disposal events. For example, standard deviation tech- niques could be used to smooth out the captured weights for disposal events. The historically captured data may be data captured historically from that weight mechanism, from weight mechanisms at that commercial food service operation or across all associated or related commercial food service operations, or across all captured data. [0043] In one embodiment, erroneous disposal events are detected and corrected using pattern recogni- tion. For example, one or more rules may be defined for common erroneous scenarios and used to iden- tify erroneous disposal events, such as waste receptacle changes being identified as a disposal event. 6 Deviation Cleanup [0078] The purpose of deviation cleanup logic is to intercept inconsistencies in the weight stream and smooth them out. For example, the bin might be removed from the scale, have additional waste put into it and then put back on the scale. In this case an unexplained gap in the weight stream would occur. [0081] Thus spurious, uncategorised transactions are smoothed to deliver a consistent, continuous time series of weight changes. 7. The patent contains the following figures: 7 8. Orbisk was established in 2019 and equally markets waste management solutions for reducing food waste, in particular its food waste monitoring product under the brand “Orbi”. The “Orbi” was designed specifically for professional kitchens to help reduce food waste while simultaneously improving operational efficiency and boosting profitability. The Orbi is supposed to operate autonomously using advanced image recognition technology. To this purpose, the Orbi is equipped with a smart camera and an integrated weight scale: the user presents a dish with food to be discarded to the smart camera, the camera takes pictures to allow the Orbi AI engine to identify which foods are being discarded while the scale weighs the discarded food. The system then compiles this data into reports accessible on smartphones and desktops. 8 II. REMEDIES SOUGHT AND SUBMISSIONS 9. Arguing that Orbisk is infringing system claim 1 through 5 and claims 11-12 as well as method claim 15 of the patent in UPC-territory, namely at least in France, Germany, and The Netherlands, and that infringement may potentially extend to Italy in the future, Winnow requests that: I. It is found that the Defendant has infringed European Patent No. 3 198 245, in particular offering and placing the Orbi System on the market, importing into and/or making the Orbi System, and storing the Orbi System for those purposes; using the Orbi System; and/or using and offering the method of claim 15 and/or the Defendant has infringed European Patent No. 3 198 245, in particular by supplying and offering to supply parties who are not entitled to exploit the patented invention, means (in the form of the Orbi System and/or the provision of back-end support in relation to the system), relating to an essential element of the invention of claims 1 to 5, 11, 12 and 15, for putting it into effect therein, when Orbisk knows that those means are suitable and intended for putting that invention into effect. II. The Defendant is ordered to cease and desist 1. from making, offering, placing on the market or using, or importing or storing for these purposes, the Orbi System in the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Netherlands and/or Italy and / or 2. from making, offering, placing on the market or using, or importing or storing for these purposes, in the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Netherlands and/or Italy a system for monitoring food waste, including: a floor-based weight mechanism configured for weighing a waste receptacle, wherein the waste receptacle is configured for receiving food waste from a plurality of consecutive disposal events before emptying the waste receptacle; a processor configured for measuring the difference in weight of the waste receptacle between consecutive disposal events of the plurality of consecutive disposal events, calculating the weight for each of the disposal events of the plurality of disposal events based upon the measured differences, and capturing the calculated weight for each disposal event; a user interface configured to receive, for each of the calculated weights, at least one indication categorising the food waste in a disposal event by a user; and a processor configured for cleaning the captured calculated weights to detect and correct erroneous weights. (direct infringement of system claim 1) especially when the system according to claim 1, further includes a central server, and wherein weights and categorisations of disposal events are transmitted to the central server (direct infringement of system claim 2) especially when in the system according to claim 2, the central server is configured for receiving weights and categorisations of disposal events from a plurality of locations (direct infringement of apparatus claim 3) especially when 9 in the system according to any one of claims 2 to 3, the central server is configured to analyse the weights and categorisation of disposal events to generate a report (direct infringement of apparatus claim 4) especially when in the system according to claim 4, the report includes suggestions for reducing waste based on the analysis (direct infringement of apparatus claim 5) especially when in the system according to any of the preceding claims, the user interface is configured to receive indications from a plurality of category types (direct infringement of apparatus claim 11) especially when in the system according to claim 11, the category types include a stage of waste occurrence, type of waste, specific waste, and/or reason for dumping out the waste. (direct infringement of apparatus claim 12) and / or 3. to offer and/or use in the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Netherlands and/or Italy a method for monitoring food waste including the following steps: a. A processor receiving a first weight from a floor-based weight mechanism of a waste receptacle after a first disposal event; b. The processor receiving a second weight from the floor-based weight mechanism of the waste receptacle after a second consecutive disposal event disposed before emptying of the waste receptacle; c. The processor determining the weight for the second disposal event based on the difference between the first and second weights; d. The processor capturing the weight for the second disposal event; e. A processor cleaning the captured weight to detect and correct erroneous weights; and f. A user interface receiving an input from a user to categorise the food waste for the second disposal event (direct infringement of the method claim 15) and / or 4. from supplying or offering to supply parties who are not entitled to exploit the patented invention means relating to an essential element of the invention of claims 1 to 5, 11, 12 and 15 of European Patent No. 3 198 245, for putting it into effect therein, when Orbisk knows that those means are suitable and intended for putting that invention into effect. III. The Defendant is ordered to pay, at their own expense 1. to recall the Orbi System mentioned under No. I. from distribution channels in the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Netherlands and/or Italy; 2. to permanently remove the Orbi System mentioned under No. I. from distribution channels in the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Netherlands and/or Italy; 3. to destroy the products mentioned under No. I in the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Netherlands and/or Italy; IV. The Defendant is ordered to, 10 1. provide the Claimant with information on the products referred to under No I. in a list structured for each month of a calendar year and according to patentinfringing products, in electronic form which can be analysed with the aid of a computer, from five years prior to 18 June 2024. a) the origin and the distribution channels of the products mentioned under No. I; b) the quantities delivered, received or ordered and the prices paid for the products referred to under No. I; c) the identity of all third parties involved in the distribution of the products mentioned under No. I; 2. render to the Claimant their accounts to prove the information provided under No. IV.1. plus the information on the profit made, by providing the following documents for each month of a calendar year and for each patent-infringing product in electronic form which can be evaluated with the aid of a computer: a) Invoices - or, if these are not available, delivery notes - of the individual deliveries, breaking down the respective deliveries according to offer quantities, offer times, prices of the goods offered and type designations as well as names and addresses of the commercial recipients of the sales offers for all products sold or otherwise disposed of; b) Evidence of costs, breaking down the costs by individual cost factors and the profits made; c) Invoices - or, if these are not available, delivery notes - and corresponding statements of all costs incurred, on which the defendants rely in calculating their profits; the accuracy of which is audited and confirmed by a certified public accountant appointed by the Claimant at the Defendant's expense, whereby the certified public accountant is obliged to maintain confidentiality vis-à-vis the Claimant beyond the aforementioned information; V. The Claimant is permitted, at the expense of the Defendant, to publicise and publish the decision in whole or in part in the following public media: for the Federal Republic of Germany, in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and in the Handelsblatt newspaper; for France, in the Le Monde newspaper and in the Les Échos newspaper; for Italy, in the Corriere della Sera newspaper; and for the Netherlands, in the De Telegraaf newspaper. VI. It is found, that the Defendant is required to compensate the Claimant for any and all damages incurred as a result of acts pursuant to No. I. from five years prior to 18 June 2024 and any and all such damages in the future, such damages (and interest thereon) to be determined by way of further proceedings. VII. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant an amount of EUR 250,000.00 as provisional damages; VIII. The Defendant is ordered to pay the Claimant’s costs and expenses of the proceedings (including interest thereon). IX. The decision can be enforced as follows: 11 1. The orders mentioned under No. II.1, II.2, II.3 and II.4 are directly enforceable. In the event of any violation against this order, the Defendant shall pay a coercive penalty of EUR 5,000 per item. 2. The orders referred to in No. III., No. IV., No. VII., No. VIII. are enforceable after the Claimant has notified the Court of which part of the orders it intends to enforce and after the notification has been served on the Defendant and/or • the Claimant has filed a certified translation of the orders into the official language of the Contracting Member State where enforcement is to take place and after the notice and, where applicable, the certified translation have been served on the Defendant; and After the expiry of a period of 45 days from the date of service pursuant to No. V.2, the Defendant shall pay to the Court a coercive penalty of EUR 2,000 per day of delay in the event of any violation against any of the orders referred to in No. III., No. IV, No. V, No. VI, No. VII and/or No. VIII above. 10. Winnow argues that the Orbi is a system according to claims 1 through 5, 11 and 12 and applies the method of claim 15 directly and literally, or in any case by equivalence. 11. Orbisk requests the Court to dismiss the claims, submitting that it does not infringe any of the asserted claims of the patent because not all the features of the claims are met in the Orbi. 12. Furthermore, Orbisk argues that the patent cannot be infringed as it should be revoked. In line with this argumentation, Orbisk filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent, arguing that the patent is invalid for the following reasons: 1.1. The patent contains added matter. 1.2. The patent is not novel or not inventive over Chinese utility model application CN203324802U of Guangzhou Eastsoft Technology Co Ltd. published on 4 Decem- ber 2013 (“CN802”), pr J. Warwick, “Restaurants turning to high-tech solutions to save money and food”, The Guardian, 28 March 2014 (“the 2014 Guardian article”). 1.3. The patent is not inventive over V. Lim et al., “Eco-Feedback for Non-Consumption”, 13 September 2014 (“Lim”). 1.4. The priority claim is not valid which means that the patent is not inventive over the Winnow Promotional Video, published on YouTube on 13 February 2015, combined with common general knowledge, for example reflected in the textbook “Explora- tory Data Mining and Data Cleaning” by T. Dasu and T. Johnson, Wiley 2003 (here- inafter “Dasu”), J.M. Hellerstein, “Quantitative Data Cleaning for Large Databases”, http://db.cs.berkeley.edu.jmh, February 27, 2008 (hereinafter “Hellerstein”) or 12 Korhonen et al., “Waste container weighing data processing to create reliable infor- mation of household waste generation”, published in Waste Management 39 (2015) 15–25, and available online on 9 March 2015 (hereinafter “Korhonen”). 1.5. The dependent claims are also not inventive. 13. Orbisk thus requests the court to: In the main action: (a) dismiss Winnow’s claims; and (b) order Winnow (i) to pay Orbisk the sum of EUR 112,000 as legal costs incurred by Orbisk and (ii) to reimburse Orbisk the other expenses incurred by Orbisk, as provided under Article 69 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement to be further specified; and In the counterclaim: (a) revoke European patent EP 3 198 245 B1 in its entirety with effect in the territory of all Contracting Member States in which the patent has effect (Rule 25 RoP UPC); and (b) order Winnow (i) to reimburse Orbisk legal (sic, the court understands meant is as legal costs) the sum of EUR 127,000 (i.e. EUR 112,000 as recoverable costs of representation plus EUR 15,000 in court fees) as provided under Article 69 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement and Rule 118(5) of the Rules of Procedure; and (ii) to reimburse Orbisk the other expenses incurred by Orbisk as provided under Article 69 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement to be further specified. 14. In the Application to Amend the Patent filed on 10 March 2025, Winnow withdrew claims 1 and 15 as granted, and filed a new Main Request. Amendments to Claim 1 are highlighted in red (the same amendments were made to method claim 15): 15. Additionally, Winnow filed conditional requests 1, 2/2A and 3/3A/3B/3C. 13 Conditional Request 1 adds - on top of the amendments introduced with the Main Request - that the “the category type is a stage of waste occurrence, a type of waste and/or a specific waste”. Dependent claim 12, which substantially recited the features added to Feature 1.4, is deleted. The same amendments were made to method claim 15, now numbered 14. 16. Conditional request 2 further adds that “the system is configured to clean the associated categorisations to detect and correct erroneous categorisations”. Dependent claim 12 remains deleted, with the same amendments to method claim 14. 14 17. Conditional Request 2A further replaces “the system is configured to clean the associated categorisations” with “a processor or central server of the system is configured to clean the associated categorisations”. 18. Finally, Conditional Requests 3, 3A, 3B and 3C are combinations of requests 1 and 2 with the addition that “a stability controller configured to receive weight signals from the floor scale, detecting weight changes at the floor scale and controlling transmission of weight signals to the processor based upon the stability of the weight signal, wherein the stability controller is configured to determine when the weight signal is stable based on a period of time of stability where the period of time is generated based on the magnitude of change in the weight signal”. The same amendment was made to the method claim. 19. In response to these amendments Orbisk and noting that, in its reply to the counterclaim, Winnow referred to tests performed during the priority year at various commercial kitchens, Orbisk alleged public prior use and applied for an R. 190 RoP-order. At the interim conference, it was made clear that time was not sufficient for such order, even when granted. Parties agreed that Winnow would release some documentation. The R. 190 RoP -application was left open in case the panel would consider at the oral hearing, or when 15 drafting the decision, that the decision hinges on the alleged public prior use. Also, Orbisk additionally relied on Japanese patent application publication JPS6378023A of Shimadzu Corporation, with publication date 8 April 1988 (“JP023”) to demonstrate obviousness of conditional request 3, 3A-3C. 20. Orbisk further claims that the main request and Conditional Request 1 are invalid for the same reasons as the granted patent. Orbisk claims that Conditional Requests 2 and 2A are invalid due to a lack of clarity, insufficient disclosure and added matter, as well as a lack of inventive step. Orbisk also claims that Conditional Requests 3, 3A–3C are invalid due to a lack of clarity and a lack of inventive step. III. GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION III.A – SUMMARY AND POINTS AT ISSUE 21. The subject-matter of the proceedings is, on the one hand, the alleged infringement of the patent and, on the other hand, its alleged invalidity as argued in the counterclaim. The jurisdiction of (this local division of) the UPC is not in dispute and can be based on the place of residence of Orbisk (Art. 33.1 (b) UPCA). 22. As both validity and infringement assessments depend on claim construction, on which the parties have diverging opinions, this will be addressed first (in Part III.B) together with a discussion of the patent's general understanding. The skilled person is also defined there. This will be followed by an assessment of validity in section III.C and an assessment of infringement in section III.D. Section III.E will discuss the implications of the decisions taken in the other sections for the remedies sought, including proportionality. As the case was not bifurcated, the claim and counterclaim will be dealt with together where possible. 23. The patent is deemed valid in its amended form, as submitted in Conditional Request 3, and no infringement claim based on this request was submitted. Therefore, the patent is not infringed. III.B – THE PATENT, TEACHING AND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 24. The patent relates to the monitoring of food waste. According to the patent, restaurants throw away a large proportion of the food they buy. Since food costs account for around one-third of total revenue, unnecessary waste can result in substantial losses. Effective food waste reduction begins with accurate measurement. However, conventional methods available at the priority date of the patent mostly relied on manual and 16 impractical processes. For example, weighing discarded food at the end of the day required time and effort from users and failed to provide precise and detailed data about waste composition, thereby increasing costs. Another solution involved users recording waste details while depositing food scraps into a container, which was then emptied into a receptacle after measurement. In the environment of commercial kitchens, this approach proved burdensome, resulting in incomplete or inaccurate data collection. 25. The patent explains that “food waste can be monitored with high compliance by automatic capture of weight differences between disposal events occurring in a waste receptacle”. The patent describes a system comprising a bin placed on a set of scales. When the users dispose of food, they press buttons on a touchscreen to provide information that is used to categorise the food being thrown into the bin. A processor receives signals from the scale and calculates the weight of the food added to the bin. Where necessary, it cleans the data to ensure erroneous data or spurious weights are detected and handled accordingly. 26. Winnow has asserted that system claims 1 to 5 and claims 11 and 12, together with independent method claim 15, which describes the features of claim 1 in method form, have been infringed by Orbisk. In their statement of claim (para. 43), Winnow stated that claim 15 is a corresponding method claim to claim 1, and that the explanations for claim 1 apply similarly to claim 15. Orbisk took a similar position (SoD, para. 79), and the entire debate centred on the validity and infringement of independent claim 1. 27. Main Request Claim 1 of the Main Request can be divided into the following features: 1.1 A system for monitoring food waste, including: 1.2 a floor-based weight mechanism configured for weighing a waste receptacle, wherein the waste receptacle is configured for receiving food waste from a plurality of consecutive disposal events before emptying the waste receptacle; 1.3 a processor configured for measuring the difference in weight of the waste receptacle between consecutive disposal events of the plurality of consecutive disposal events, calculating the weight for each of the disposal events of the plurality of disposal events based upon the measured differences, and capturing the calculated weight for each disposal event; 1.4 a user interface configured to receive, for each of the calculated weights, at least one indication categorising the food waste in a disposal event by a user; and 17 1.5 a processor configured for cleaning the captured calculated weights to detect and correct erroneous weights. 28. The parties disagree on the proper interpretation of certain features of claim 1. The Court of Appeal of the UPC (“CoA”) has set out the following principles regarding interpretation of a patent claim according to Art. 69 EPC:1 The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the protective scope of a European patent. The interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely on the strict, literal meaning of the wording used (…). Rather, the description and the drawings must always be used as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim and not only to resolve any ambiguities in the patent claim. However, this does not mean that the patent claim merely serves as a guideline and that its subject- matter also extends to what, after examination of the description and drawings, appears to be the subject-matter for which the patent proprietor seeks protection. The CoA also clarified (i) that the principles for interpreting a patent claim apply equally to the assessment of the infringement and to the validity of a European patent and (ii) that a patent must be interpreted from the point of view of the average person skilled in the art (the “Skilled Person”). 29. Winnow submits that the Skilled Person would have experience in supply chain management solutions, particularly those for monitoring and tracking food waste (SoC, para. 20). Orbisk, on the other hand, submits that the Skilled Person would be an engineer with experience in weighing systems and data management, and that their general knowledge at the relevant time would typically have included a certain level of knowledge on dataset management (SoD, para. 160). 30. The parties appear to concur that the Skilled Person would have several years of experience in developing solutions for monitoring and tracking food waste. The Court agrees with Orbisk’s position that such a person would also have at least some knowledge of dataset management. Monitoring food waste inherently involves the collection and analysis of data to assess quantities of discarded food, which is typically measured by weight. An experienced professional would undoubtedly be aware of the various techniques required to ensure reliable weight-based data acquisition. Moreover, implementing data processing protocols—either during the initial collection or subsequent data integration—is, if not perhaps essential, at least common practice in managing data derived from weighing procedures. 1 Order CoA UPC, NanoString Technologies -v- 10x Genomics, UPC_CoA_335/2023, App_576355/2023 of 26 February 2024, as rectified by the order of 11 March 2024. See also G1/24, Enlarged Board of Appeal EPO. 18 31. For this decision, it suffices to interpret feature 1.5. Feature 1.5 Feature 1.5 recites “a processor configured for cleaning the captured calculated weights to detect and correct erroneous weights”. The meaning of “cleaning” has been widely discussed by the parties. With respect to Feature 1.5, the court notes that the patent mentions cleaning in the following paragraphs (see paragraph 6 above, repeated below for ease of reference): [0040] In step 205, the captured weights and/or associated categorisations for the disposal event may be cleaned, for example, to remove user error. [0041] The cleaning may include the detection and correction of erroneous weights and/or categorisations. [0044] In one embodiment, at least a part of this cleaning may occur at the processor 104. The processor 104 may determine that the presence of a user has caused an error, for example, the user may be leaning on the weight receptacle affecting accuracy of the weight signals, and correct the error by detecting the subsequent absence of a user and variation in the weight signal, to update the weight for the disposal event using the current weight signal. Detection of the absence of a user may be via a camera or it may be inferred (for example, after a period of time has lapsed the system can assume that the user has left). [0076] Two algorithms are applied to the weight data stream to clean irrelevant and spurious transactions. This is necessary because human classification of data events is not 100% reliable. People may get interrupted or distracted before they complete categorisation of a transaction. Post processing on collected data allows two types of uncategorised transactions to be corrected: bin changes and deviations. Both of these are performed at the cloud system 340. Deviation Cleanup [0078] The purpose of deviation cleanup logic is to intercept inconsistencies in the weight stream and smooth them out. For example, the bin might be removed from the scale, have additional waste put into it and then put back on the scale. In this case an unexplained gap in the weight stream would occur. [0079] An exemplary description of a deviation cleanup algorithm follows: An example follows paras [0079]-[0080]). In para. [0081], the patent reads: [0081] Thus spurious, uncategorised transactions are smoothed to deliver a consistent, continuous time series of weight changes. 19 The Court notes that the patent's description first introduces cleaning in a general form (paragraphs [0040] and [0041]), whereby captured weights and/or associated categorisations for the disposal event may be cleaned to remove user error. This cleaning process may involve detecting and correcting erroneous weights and/or categorisations. The description then provides more detail and some examples of specific cleaning activities. The Court also notes that Feature 1.5 refers to cleaning in the broad and generic terms of paragraphs [0040] and [0041] and is not limited to any of the examples or techniques provided later in the description. The term cleaning in feature 1.5 is thus to be interpreted broadly and encompasses any type of data cleaning relating to weights and\or categorisations. III.C – VALIDITY 32. Orbisk bears the burden of presenting and proving facts relating to the invalidity of the patent and other circumstances that allegedly support its position. Main request Priority 33. In accordance with Article 87 EPC, any person who has duly filed a patent application, or their successor in title, has the right to claim priority for a period of twelve months from the filing date of the first application when filing a European patent application for the same invention. As argued by the parties involved, the requirement of "the same invention" in Article 87 EPC is met if a skilled person can derive the subject matter of the claimed invention directly and unambiguously from the previous application as a whole, using common general knowledge (the so-called "gold standard"), in line with EPO case law and the standard used in several Contracting Member States. Orbisk contends that the priority document does not disclose “a processor configured for cleaning the captured calculated weights to detect and correct erroneous weights”, stressing that the priority document makes no mention of cleaning, either with regard to erroneous weights or in any other context. The priority document does not mention that the device of the alleged invention is susceptible to errors that need correction. According to Orbisk, the patent's claims are therefore not entitled to priority (see SoD, paras. 88–89). 34. Winnow conceded that the patent is not entitled to priority (see the reply to the defence and counterclaim, as well as the application to amend the patent, paragraph 95). 20 Therefore, the court does not need to decide this. For determining prior art, the relevant date of the patent is therefore 21 April 2015, i.e. the actual filing date of the PCT application. Inventive step 35. According to Art. 56 EPC, a claimed invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. An objective approach must be taken to the assessment of inventive step. The subjective ideas of the applicant or inventor are irrelevant. Inventive step is to be assessed from the point of view of the Skilled Person based on the state of the art as a whole, including the Skilled Person´s common general knowledge. The Skilled Person is assumed to have had access to the entire publicly available art on the relevant date. The decisive factor is whether the claimed subject matter follows from the prior art in such a way that the Skilled Person would have found it, on the basis of that person’s knowledge and skills, for example by obvious modifications of what was already known. As a tool to assess whether a claimed invention was obvious to a Skilled Person, the Court will follow the problem and solution approach (“PSA”) as suggested by the parties and as also used by the EPO and the Munich Local Division2. Given that parties followed the PSA, the Court need not decide if the PSA is the (only) approach to be followed. Any approach in fact would render the same result in this case. In this context it is necessary to determine a realistic starting point in the state of the art. There must be a justification as to why the Skilled Person would consider a particular document in the state of the art as a realistic starting point. In selecting the starting point, the first consideration is that it must be directed to a similar purpose or similar effect as the invention or at least belong to the same or a closely related technical field as the claimed invention. In practice, such prior art is generally that which corresponds to a similar use and requires minimal structural and functional modifications to arrive at the claimed invention. 36. In its statement of claim in the counterclaim, Orbisk mentioned several combinations of documents as a reason for the patent being obvious and thus invalid for lack of an inventive step. However, since the priority date of the patent is not valid, the “Winnow Video” on file as DE05 is no doubt the closest prior art document or at the very least a realistic starting point. It is directed to the same or similar purpose and it has a similar effect as the claimed invention, while it also has the most features in common with the patent. In fact, it is an earlier version of the same product by the same party, Winnow. 2 LD Munich, April 4, 2025, UPC_CFI_501/2023 (Edwards v. Merill) 21 37. The Winnow Video is a video of an earlier version of the Winnow system as laid down in the patent, posted on the internet during the priority year of the patent. The Court will not consider updates or improvements of the Winnow system, if any, that may have been implemented and used during the priority period regarding which Orbisk alleged public prior use. Accordingly, the Court’s assessment is based on the information that was made publicly accessible by the Winnow Video as submitted by Orbisk as DE05, along with several screenshots submitted as DE04. Specifically, Orbisk relied on the following screenshots from the video: 22 23 38. It is undisputed that the Winnow Video shows Features 1.1 through 1.4 (see the above screenshots for reference). Therefore, the question is whether adding Feature 1.5 is obvious. Regarding Feature 1.5, Orbisk acknowledges that the Winnow Video does not reveal a processor designed to clean the calculated weights in order to detect and correct erroneous weights. The technical effect of Feature 1.5 is undisputed: food waste monitoring data produced by the Winnow System contains fewer errors and is thus more reliable and suitable for monitoring and managing food waste. Orbisk formulates the underlying objective technical problem as “how to make the Winnow System (as shown in the Winnow Video) better suited for its intended use as a smart meter of food waste data for monitoring and managing food waste” (see also the Winnow Video at 0:20-0:24) (see paragraph 196 of Orbisk rejoinder to the reply, 10 March 2025). From paragraph 140 (see Winnow rejoinder to the reply to the defence to the counterclaim, 10 April 2025) onwards, in which Winnow repeats the problem as formulated by Orbisk. Winnow (in any case) did not formulate an alternative problem to be solved starting from the Winnow Video. The Court will apply Orbisk’s formulation of the objective technical problem, as it seems realistic. It also does not contain a pointer to the solution provided by Feature 1.5. At any rate, in this case the decision does not hinge on the exact formulation of the objective technical problem. 24 39. Orbisk goes on to argue that the idea to make the Winnow system better suitable by adding a data cleaning feature to the disclosed system would be common general knowledge for the Skilled Person, stating that “the common general knowledge of the skilled person at the priority date will typically have included a certain level of knowledge on management of datasets. A basic and fundamental element of data preparation is cleaning of data to correct for errors in quantitative or qualitative data.” Orbisk seeks support for this in two opinions rendered by who confirms that documents from the prior art such as Dasu, Hellerstein and Korhonen (DE06, DE07 and DE08) represent common general knowledge that would be applied by the Skilled Person in the relevant field to the system shown in the video. 40. Winnow disagrees and relies on opinion that the disclosures in such documents do not correspond to the cleaning techniques that a Skilled Person would apply to DE05. This is because the documents mainly concern the cleaning of large datasets from different fields of application. 41. In the claim construction of Feature 1.5, the Court holds that the claim should be interpreted broadly (see para. 30 above). Similarly, applying the definition of a Skilled Person outlined in the same section, the Court holds that a professional in the field of food waste monitoring systems, who has some expertise in data collection, would of course recognise the importance of reliable data. Winnow concedes this in paragraph 131 of the rejoinder to the counterclaim. Based on the common general knowledge of such a person, the Skilled Person would be fully capable of cleaning the data after collection but before conducting any substantive analysis. This includes identifying and correcting errors in the data using well-established, standard techniques. In this respect, it is noted that Winnow’s expert concedes that “[…] the skilled person would be familiar with the correction of drift errors and the exclusion of underrange or overrange values, as per paragraphs 35 and 36 of the SoD, but would not be familiar with the specific descriptions of these processes in DE-15”. 42. The court appreciates reasoning. However, irrespective of whether the specific teachings of Dasu, Hellerstein or Korhonen represent common general knowledge, the court considers – and agrees – that some type of correction of drift errors and the exclusion of underrange or overrange values (outliers) are in any case part of the common general knowledge of the Skilled Person. The description of the patent provides some specific examples of data cleaning, as discussed. However, as mentioned, Feature 1.5 is worded rather broadly and generally, and is not limited to such specific examples. The description also gives no indication that the wording of the claims should be limited 25 to the examples given in the patent, given the general statements made in paragraph [0040]. Therefore, any type of data cleaning falls within the scope of Feature 1.5. 43. As Orbisk contended and (rightly) conceded by Winnow (again, see paragraph 131 Winnow’s rejoinder but also paragraphs 133-134), the reliability of the data is a desirable feature. The Skilled Person would therefore be motivated to implement some type of error cleaning after data collection. Clearly, even at the application date – a point not contested by Winnow – such cleaning is performed by a processor. The addition of the correction of drift errors and outliers in the system disclosed in the Winnow Video by a processor, based on the Skilled person’s common general knowledge, thus involves no inventive step. 44. Winnow disputes that the Skilled Person would know that the results of the weighing in the video would be unreliable or that the Skilled Person would be aware of the potential problems that could result in errors. The Court understands that Winnow therewith contests that the Skilled Person would be prompted to improve the system. While this may be true, the error-cleaning steps suggested by common general knowledge, as mentioned above, are so basic that any Skilled Person would perform them, regardless of how unreliable they think the data is. Of course, the extent of the data cleaning may depend on the reliability, but the fact that some cleaning is performed is not in question. Similarly, the origin of the problems may be unclear from the video, but this would not deter a Skilled Person from performing such basic error cleaning. In any case, the Court finds that it is clear from the video, and even more so from its application in a live commercial kitchen environment, that the captured weights will inevitably contain errors, such as when a bin is changed or when users rest their hands, plates or pans on the scale. 45. Claim 1 therefore lacks inventive step over the Winnow Video in combination with common general knowledge of a Skilled Person. Similar considerations apply to Claim 15. Conditional Request 1 46. Conditional Request 1 adds to Feature 1.4 that “the category type is a stage of waste occurrence, a type of waste and/or a specific waste”. The Winnow Video (DE05) shows that a user interface requires indications from a user regarding the waste category types, and thus discloses this additional requirement. Conditional Request 1 lacks inventive step for the same reasons discussed with reference to the Main Request. Conditional Requests 2 and 2A 47. Conditional Request 2 builds on Conditional Request 1 by stating that “the system is configured to clean the associated categorisations to detect and correct erroneous 26 categorisations”. Alternatively, Conditional Request 2A specifies that it is “a processor or central server of the system” (rather than just “the system”) that is configured to clean the associated categorisations to detect and correct erroneous categorisations. Orbisk claims that the amendments include added matter, and lack disclosure as well as inventive step. 48. There is added matter if the conditional request contains subject-matter that extends beyond the content of the application as filed. In order to ascertain whether there is added matter, the Court must thus first ascertain what the Skilled Person would derive directly and unambiguously using his common general knowledge and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the application as filed, whereby implicitly disclosed subject-matter, i.e. matter that is a clear and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned, shall also be considered as part of its content. 49. The term “categorisation” is absent from the portion of the claim preceding the newly introduced amendment. It may be construed as the outcome of the step “categorising the waste in a disposal event by the user.” However, the patent and the application as filed only address the miscategorisation of a bin change but do not address instances of other types of erroneous categorisations wherein, for example, a user disposes of food A but mistakenly labels it as a food B via the user interface. In this case, the system would be unable to detect and/or correct such miscategorisation based on the teaching of the patent or the application as filed. The patent or application provide no guidance on such errors, nor do they explain how these could be corrected within a system consistent with the patent/application. Consequently, the broad scope of “erroneous categorisation” (going beyond bin changes) and the meaning of “to detect and correct erroneous categorisations” does not find support in the application as filed nor in the patent description, explicitly nor implicitly. The conditional request therefore lends too broad a scope to the claim, hence adding matter. This conditional request is also insufficiently disclosed, in violation of Art. 83 EPC as rightly indicated by Orbisk, in as far as it goes beyond detecting and correcting bin changes. Winnow has not indicated any passage or common general knowledge where this information is to be found. Conditional Requests 3 50. Conditional Requests 3, 3A, 3B and 3C add new Feature 1.6 to the Main Request (conditional request 3), to Conditional Requests 1 (conditional request 3A) and to Conditional Request 2 (conditional request 3B), and to Conditional Request 2A (conditional request 3C) respectively, introducing “a stability controller configured to receive weight signals from the floor scale, detecting weight changes at the floor scale and controlling transmission of weight signals to the processor based upon the stability of the weight 27 signal, wherein the stability controller is configured to determine when the weight signal is stable based on a period of time of stability where the period of time is generated based on the magnitude of change in the weight signal”. The newly added feature is based on original claims 13 and 14 of the application as filed (and as granted), and explained in [0069] and [0070] of the patent. 51. Conditional Request 3 is valid. The added feature of a stability controller, which calculates (delayed) system response/ the signal stability time based on the magnitude of weight signal changes, introduces an intermediate processing stage that enables adaptive stability analysis. This approach effectively balances low sensitivity to noise with fast response times, as detailed in paragraph [0070] of the patent. After the obvious introduction of the error cleaning, the technical problem addressed by the Winnow Video’s prior waste monitoring system may be seen as how to optimise the balance between response speed and signal stability. See paras [0069]-[0070]: Stabilization vs. Responsiveness [0069] Preventing noise and accidental knocks of the bin being registered as food waste requires a delayed system response, during which the stability of the weight change can be analyzed and confirmed. Unfortunately, delayed responses have a negative impact on the user experience, which in the long run leads to reduced compliance. To cater for these two opposing constraints, the Winnow system uses an algorithm with a variable response time based on the magnitude of the change. [0070] Small weight changes are more likely to be noise, and therefore require longer analysis time to confirm a stable reading (as shown in Figure 5a). Medium weight changes are very likely to be food waste falling into the bin, and therefore require a much shorter analysis time before confirming a stable reading, leading to a fast response time (as shown in Figure 5b). Very large weight changes are more likely to be staff interacting with the bin therefore, though the response must be fast (as shown in Figure 5c), a longer period of post-response analysis must be allowed to confirm whether the reading has stabilised or needs to be cancelled (e.g. accidental foot on bin). The definition of 'small', 'medium' and 'large' weight changes are set based on historical data along two dimensions: 'weight vs probability of being categorized' and 'weight vs observed frequency'. 52. Orbisk relies on Japanese patent application publication JPS6378023A (“JP023”) by Shimadzu Corporation, with publication date 8 April 1988, filed as Exhibit DE44, to argue obviousness of Conditional Request 3. This piece of prior art was only filed with the “rejoinder to the reply and reply to the defence to the counterclaim, defence to the application to amend the patent, application to amend the claim and application pursuant to R. 190 RoP” of 10 March 2025. Winnow submits that the document should be dismissed as late filed, since the feature introduced into Conditional Request 3 is based on original claims 13 and 14. The combination of features resulting from original claims 1, 13 and 14 had therefore been on file since the beginning of the case and Orbisk should have responded in its statement of defence/counterclaim accordingly. During the interim 28 conference, the parties agreed that this document may be admitted. At any rate, the document does not affect the inventive step of this request. 53. JP023 discloses an electronic balance (scale) having a load sensor 11 that provides a load sensor signal via an amplifier 12 and analogue-to-digital converter 13 to a digital filter 14. This filter 14 reduces the noise in the load sensor signal, before the calculation unit 15 converts the signal into an actual weight. JP023 explains that adjusting the time constant of the digital filter 14 will result in a trade-off between a shorter or longer filter response time and a lower or higher resistance to signal noise. JP023 also explains that a quick response as well as high stability can be obtained by increasing the filter time constant when the magnitude of the load signal fluctuation remains within a first threshold range |W1|, and by decreasing the filter time constant when the load signal fluctuation exceeds a second fluctuation range |W2| that is larger than the first range i.e. |W2| > |W1|. 54. According to Orbisk, this would amount to a “stability controller” as referred to in claim 1 of Conditional Request 3. According to Winnow, JP023 is not relevant to systems for monitoring food waste particularly in a commercial kitchen, since the application is directed to a system for measuring small amounts of liquid or powder. Winnow submits that there is no motivation for the Skilled Person to incorporate any teachings of JP023 into the system of the Winnow Video. The general problem solved by the features of Conditional Request 3 is improving the reliability of the system whilst maintaining compliance and that, in the context of Conditional Request 3, this general problem is solved in part by the stability controller of Conditional Request 3, as well as the post- capture processing of Feature 1.5 and the method of weight capture of Feature 1.3. Winnow also states that, regardless of the lack of motivation based on the Winnow Video, the Skilled Person would not consider this document to be relevant, since JP023 does not disclose a stability controller as claimed in Conditional Request 3. 55. Conditional Request 3 requires that “the stability controller is configured to determine when the weight signal is stable based on a period of time of stability where the period of time is generated based on the magnitude of change in the weight signal” while the prior art method only discusses a filter which has a time constant that can be modified based on two weight thresholds. This time constant does not define a period of time of stability, nor is a stability controller required to determine when a weight signal is stable based on this period of time. 56. The Court agrees with Winnow on both aspects. Firstly, the Court sees no motivation for the Skilled Person who wants to improve the system disclosed in the Winnow Video, to turn to and to combine it with JP023, a document that describes a rather different type of 29 scales, both in terms of size and purpose (small electronic balance/scale for weighing small amounts of powder or liquid versus a large, industrial scale, for weighing food waste). Secondly, the filter adaptivity of JP023 does not anticipate what the claim requires, i.e. that the stability controller is configured to determine when the weight signal is stable based on a period of time of stability where the period of time is generated based on the magnitude of change in the weight signal. Finding on validity 57. In conclusion, the patent in the contracting member states is valid in the form presented under Conditional Request 3 but invalid according to the patent as granted, to the Main Request or to the Conditional Requests 1-2A . In view of this outcome, there is no need to address further conditional requests 3A-C. IV. INFRINGEMENT 58. Orbisk does not infringe any of the claims of the patent as granted, according to the Main Request or Conditional Requests 1-2A since they are not valid. Winnow has not claimed infringement of Conditional Request 3. The patent is therefore not infringed. V. CONCLUSION AND COSTS 59. The conclusion from the above is that the patent is to be partially revoked and upheld according to Conditional Request 3. The patent so maintained is not infringed. The orders sought in the main action should therefore be dismissed. 60. By email of 11 June 2025, the representative of Orbisk informed the Court as follows: On behalf of both parties, I hereby inform you that the parties have agreed, subject to the points made below, to accept each other’s costs, which are as follows:  Orbisk’s costs amount to a total of €250K: o Costs of representation: €224K (€112K for each action); o Court fee for the revocation: €15K; o Expert costs: €11K;  Winnow’s costs amount to a total of €150K: o Costs of representation: €127K; o Court fee: €15K; o Expert costs: €8K. 30 The parties furthermore agree that the total costs should be split between the infringement and invalidity action on a 50/50 basis. The parties leave the apportionment of the costs over the actions in line with the proportion of success (and based on the amounts mentioned above) to the Court. The parties will make submissions on this at the oral hearing. In addition, Winnow reserved the right to argue that Orbisk’s expert fees should not fall outside the ceiling and/or that they should not be treated as fully recoverable. Orbisk also reserves all rights in this respect. 61. Parties have thus agreed on the costs. The court will follow this agreement, which now requires a decision from the court regarding the apportionment over the actions (which the court understands to mean within each of the actions, as the parties agreed on a 50/50 division of the agreed amount between claim and counterclaim already). 62. Orbisk, as the prevailing party in the main infringement action, will be awarded costs of €112,000 as agreed between the parties. The other costs sought by Orbisk relate to the expert. Despite reserving the right to contest these expert costs, Winnow did not do so at the oral hearing. Therefore, these costs will also be awarded in full. 63. Regarding the counterclaim for revocation, Winnow submitted that, if the counterclaim were to succeed only partially, this should be taken into consideration. Winnow furthermore disagreed with Orbisk's assertion that Orbisk should be considered the prevailing party if Conditional Request 3 were to be upheld. Orbisk is to be regarded as the largely prevailing party since the essence of the counterclaim was successful. 64. The Court considers that the economic focus of the dispute was on the Orbi3, while the patent is upheld in such a way as to take the Orbi outside the scope of protection. Furthermore, the threat of infringement was the primary reason for initiating the counterclaim. Hence the Court considers that Winnow shall compensate to Orbisk the costs for counterclaim for revocation in full. However, since Orbisk pursued the revocation counterclaim also against Conditional Request 3, which was upheld but not asserted against it, a deduction of cost of 15% is in order. 65. Since there is no need for the Court to look further into the alleged public prior use, the R. 190 RoP -application from Orbisk will be denied for lack of legal interest. 3 See Mannheim (DE) Local Division, 2 April 2025, ACT_579338/2023, ORD_598590/2023, Fujifilm v. Kodak, para. 146. 31 IV. DECISION For all these reasons and after having heard the parties, the Court In the main infringement claim: A. Dismisses the orders sought by Winnow, B. Orders Winnow Solutions Limited to pay Orbisk B.V. the sum of EUR 112,000 as legal costs and EUR 5,500 as expert costs incurred by Orbisk, In the counterclaim for revocation: C. Revokes European patent EP 3198245 as granted in the contracting member states of the UPCA and maintains the patent in the contracting member states of the UPCA in a form according to Conditional Request 3: CONDITIONAL REQUEST 3: 1. A system for monitoring food waste, including: An industrial washable floor scale configured for weighing a waste receptacle, wherein the floor scale is large enough for the entire waste receptacle to be placed on the scale and wherein the waste receptacle is configured for receiving food waste from a plurality of consecutive disposal events before emptying the waste recepta- cle; a processor configured for measuring the difference in weight of the waste recepta- cle between consecutive disposal events of the plurality of consecutive disposal events, calculating the weight for each of the disposal events of the plurality of dis- posal events based upon the measured differences, and capturing the calculated weight for each disposal event; a user interface configured to receive, for each of the calculated weights, at least one indication categorising the food waste in a disposal event by a user; a processor configured for cleaning the captured calculated weights to detect and correct erroneous weights; and a stability controller configured to receive weight signals from the floor scale, detect- ing weight changes at the floor scale and controlling transmission of weight signals to the processor based upon the stability of the weight signal, wherein the stability con- troller is configured to determine when the weight signal is stable based on a period of time of stability where the period of time is generated based on the magnitude of change in the weight signal. 2. A system as claimed in claim 1, further including a central server, and wherein weights and categorisations of disposal events are transmitted to the central server. 3. A system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the central server is configured for receiving weights and categorisations of disposal events from a plurality of locations. 4. A system as claimed in any one of claims 2 to 3, wherein the central server is config- ured to analyse the weights and categorisation of disposal events to generate a re- port. 32 5. A system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the report includes suggestions for reducing waste based on the analysis. 6. A system as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the weights and/or categorisations are processed to remove user error. 7. A system as claimed in claim 6, wherein the user error removal processing includes detecting erroneous weights and correcting the erroneous weights. 8. A system as claimed in claim 7, wherein erroneous weights are detected and cor- rected using deviations from previous and later disposal events. 9. A system as claimed in claim 8, wherein the user error removal processing includes detecting erroneous disposal events. 10. A system as claimed in claim 9, wherein pattern recognition is utilised to detect and correct erroneous disposal events. 11. A system as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the user interface is configured to receive indications from a plurality of category types. 12. A system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the category types include a stage of waste occurrence, type of waste, specific waste, and/or reason for dumping out the waste. 13. A method for monitoring food waste, including: a. A processor receiving a first weight from an industrial washable floor scale of a waste receptacle after a first disposal event, wherein the floor scale is large enough for the entire waste receptacle to be placed on the scale; b. The processor receiving a second weight from the industrial washable floor scale of the waste receptacle after a second consecutive disposal event disposed before emp- tying of the waste receptacle; c. The processor determining the weight for the second disposal event based on the dif- ference between the first and second weights; d. The processor capturing the weight for the second disposal event; e. A processor cleaning the captured weight to detect and correct erroneous weights; f. A user interface receiving an input from a user to categorise the food waste for the second disposal event, and g. a stability controller receiving weight signals from the floor scale, detecting weight changes at the floor scale and controlling transmission of weight signals to the pro- cessor based upon the stability of the weight signal, wherein the stability controller is configured to determine when the weight signal is stable based on a period of time of stability where the period of time is generated based on the magnitude of change in the weight signal. D. Orders that the Registry shall send a copy of this decision to the European Patent Office and to the national patent office of any Contracting Member States concerned, after the decision has become final, 33 E. Orders Winnow Solutions Limited to pay Orbisk B.V. 85% of the sums of EUR 112,000 as legal costs, EUR 15,000 as court fee, and EUR 5,500 as expert costs incurred by Orbisk, in total EUR 112,625. In the R. 190 RoP-application (App_11672/2025): F. Dismisses the application sought. Brinkman Presiding Judge and Judge rapporteur Rinkinen Legally qualified judge Kokke Legally qualified judge Sanchini Technically qualified judge for the Deputy Registrar Information about appeal An appeal against the present Decision may be lodged at the Court of Appeal, by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, within two months of the date of its notification (Art. 73(1) UPCA, R. 220.1(a), 224.1(a) RoP). Information about enforcement (Art. 82 UPCA, Art. Art. 37(2) UPCS, R. 118.8, 158.2, 354, 355.4 RoP) An authentic copy of the enforcement of the decision will be issued by the Deputy-Registrar upon request of the enforcing party, R. 69 RegR (Rules governing the Registry of the UPC). Details of the Order UPC case number: UPC_CFI_327/2024 Main proceeding CMS no’s: ACT_36388/2024 (claim) and CC_53523/2024 (counterclaim) Relevant Application: App_11672/2025 (R.190)Allekirjoittaja Petri Olavi Rinkinen Päivämäärä: 8/12/25 4:06:45 PMMargot Elsa KOKKE Digitally signed by Margot Elsa KOKKE Date: 2025.08.12 15:23:04 +02'00'Larissa Donata Hageman Digitaal ondertekend door Larissa Donata Hageman Datum: 2025.08.12 15:46:01 +02'00'Alessandro Sanchini Firmato digitalmente da Alessandro Sanchini Data: 2025.08.12 22:35:19 +02'00'Edger Frank BRINKMAN Digitally signed by Edger Frank BRINKMAN Date: 2025.08.12 22:49:05 +02'00'

Key Holdings

• Patent revoked (Main, AR1, AR2); AR3 valid but not infringed.
• Problem-Solution-Approach applied for inventive step as parties agreed.
• Broad claim interpretation led to invalidity.
• Priority claim failed.
• Evidentiary seizure request dismissed as irrelevant.
• Costs apportioned: Orbisk gets 100% infringement / 85% revocation costs.

Tags

• Claim Construction
• Infringement
• Inventive Step
• Priority
• Problem-Solution Approach
• Revocation

Related Cases

• UPC_CFI_251/2025; UPC_CFI_769/2025 – Maxell v Samsung
• UPC_CFI_499/2024 – Amycell v X
• UPC CFI 455/2024 – City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v Maars Holding B.V. et al.
• UPC CFI 327/2024 – Winnow Solutions Limited v Orbisk B.V.
• UPC CFI 187/2024 and UPC CFI 507/2024 – Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v Molecular Instruments, Inc.