Cook’in cooked

There is nothing like home-made food. Unfortunately, it seems like kitchens are never roomy enough to accommodate all those nice and fancy appliances for making soups, ice creams, bread, fondue and all that jazz. But as far as courtrooms go, some extra space can always be found for new kitchen appliance lawsuits.

In two previous posts, I discussed a case brought by Vorwerk & Co. Interholding GmbH against various companies responsible for the marketing of food processors of the MyCook brand in France. This case was indeed a good example of how patent infringement damages can be computed in our country.

It turns out that another case was also brought in parallel by the same company, based on the same patent, against other defendants (Guy Demarle Grand Public SAS et al.) responsible for the marketing of another food processor branded as Cook’in. Cook’in was held by the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI) as infringing Vorwerk’s patent, just like MyCook – although readers may recall that the appeal judgment on the merits in the MyCook case was set aside by the Cour de Cassation for procedural reasons, so that the Cour d’appel will have to reconsider the issue afresh.

The reasoning adopted by the TGI on the question of infringement in the Cook’in case is very similar to that previously adopted by the TGI and the Cour d’appel in the MyCook case. So, in a way, the recent Cook’in TGI decision is not really surprising; but the decision is a very interesting example of how the doctrine of equivalence is applied in France.

According to well-established case law, two technical means are deemed equivalent if they are of a different form, but perform a same function for a similar result. An additional condition is that the function in question must be protectable.

In this case, claim 1 of the patent reads as follows:

Kitchen machine with a stirrer vessel and a drive for an agitator in the stirrer vessel, wherein the stirrer vessel in its lower region can be heated up, wherein the stirrer vessel is covered by an inserted lid, characterised in that on the inserted lid is arranged a top piece which has a perforated bottom for preparation by steaming of foods, wherein the perforations are formed in a cooking material support of the bottom of the top piece and condensate or moisture formed is conducted back into the stirrer vessel.

This claim was not literally infringed by the Cook’in apparatus for the following reason, according to the court:

The Cook’in machine of the defendants differs from the kitchen machine of the patent in that it does not comprise a lid between the stirrer vessel and the perforated element for steam cooking. This latter element comprises a flange in its lower part on which a seal is arranged, which makes it possible to directly attach it on the stirrer vessel.

The court then made a comparison between how the Cook’in apparatus operates and how the patented machine operates and, applying the traditional test, came to the conclusion that the different technical means that are used did in fact have the same function for a similar result:

[…] Even though the Cook’in machine does not have the insertable lid as taught by claim 1 […], the embossed annular part of the vapor bowl associated with the seal disposed on the periphery provides a means of a [different] form which has the same function, namely ensuring that the cap is above the stirrer vessel, for the same result, i.e. making vapors rise from the stirrer vessel to the upper part of the cap through the dedicated openings and reintroducing the condensates into the stirrer vessel. 

Various arguments were put forward by the defendants in order to show that the Cook’in apparatus did not operate in the same way as the claimed invention, but those were not deemed persuasive by the court.

The defendants also argued that the “inserted lid” feature in claim 1 was an essential feature of the invention which necessarily had to be reproduced in order for the patent to be infringed.

The interesting point about this argument is that this feature of the “inserted lid” was not present in claim 1 as filed and was added during prosecution. So, can the doctrine of equivalence be used at all in this situation? Yes, said the court. The fact that a feature was added during prosecution does not preclude a finding of infringement by equivalence on this very feature:

Vorwerk modified its claim by adding a lid, and the EPO examiner considered that the arrangement of the steam cooking container over the lid was a novel and inventive arrangement. 

Nevertheless, such novelty and inventiveness were acknowledged relative to a prior art where the pierced basket for steam cooking was positioned below the lid. 

Therefore, what was considered as novel and inventive was not so much the presence of the lid, but rather the fact that the steam cooking part was positioned above the stirrer and heating vessel. 

Thus, the scope of claim 1 does not prevent a possible infringement despite the absence of the intermediate lid, if it is established that the means of the Cook’in machine have the same functions for the same result as those of the patent. 

The analysis made by the court here relates to the second part of the equivalence test set forth above, i.e. whether the function of the equivalent means was “protectable“. In the present case, it seems that the function was protectable because the general idea of having a steam cooking recipient arranged above a stirrer vessel was a novel and inventive concept.

There are some devices in which the presence of a lid is absolutly essential.
There are some devices in which the presence of a lid is absolutly essential.

The bottom line of the court’s approach (which is indeed the traditional approach in France) is therefore to assess what the contribution of the invention to the art really is about. A third party’s product implementing the same inventive concept in a different manner will be held infringing, irrespective of the exact claim wording selected by the drafter.

Another interesting point to note about this decision is the computation of damages. Contrary to the parallel Vorwerk v. Taurus litigation, the court (in a different composition) did not appoint an expert but directly proceeded with the assessment of damages. The result of this assessment was similar but not exactly identical to the one made in Vorwerk v. Taurus.

The main point which was discussed was, again, the rate of the indemnifying royalty to be applied. The court was apparently unconvinced by the submissions of either party in this respect and therefore they preferred to rely on the expert’s report from the other case. Although the defendants were different and the infringing device was different, the rationale for determining the proper rate could indeed be applied in a similar manner.

The court noted that three options for the indemnifying royalty rate were offered by the expert, namely 1.5%, 3% and 4.5%. The court explicitly approved the methodology used by the expert, and then came up with its own figure without any clear justification:

In view of the above, in view of the profits made by the defendants, of the advantageous economic situation of [the defendants] due to the marketing of the patented invention without a license, the court can assess the harm suffered without granting the request for additional information, and the indemnifying royalty rate should be fixed to 4%.  

This figure of 4% does not correspond to any of the three options proposed by the expert in Vorwerk v. Taurus, although it is indeed within the expert’s range. But, more importantly, this is not the same figure as the one selected by the court in Vorwerk v. Taurus where a rate of 3% was ultimately chosen by the court! (Again, the composition of the court was different.) Unfortunately, there is no explanation as to why the Cook’in infringement is worth one third more than the MyCook infringement.

At the very least, this inconsistency should be a reminder that courts have a fairly wide discretionary power when it comes to determining the quantum of damages.


CASE REFERENCE: Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 3ème chambre, 4ème section, July 2, 2015, Vorwerk & Co. Interholding GmbH v. SAS Guy Demarle Public et al., RG No. 12/11488.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.