智權報總覽 > 侵權訴訟探討           
 
Nespresso Please?咖啡機專利戰的創新策略
郭史蒂夫/北美智權 教育訓練處 歐洲專利律師
2015.02.11
雀巢公司(Nestlé)擁有的Nespresso在咖啡產業中取得了巨大的成功,也引來競爭者的爭相模仿。雖然雀巢已經用專利保護此一產品,但仍然有兩家公司藉由歐洲優先權以及專利法規的特性找到切入點;連雀巢這種國際大廠在專利保護上都會掛一漏萬,值得所有廠商引為借鏡。

總部位於瑞士之大型跨國食品公司雀巢(Nestlé),最成功的品牌之一就屬Nespresso 膠囊咖啡。 Nespresso是一台可以烹煮單杯意義式濃縮咖啡的機器(請參見以下例圖)。其係涉及了運用一台特殊機器,並且以含有咖啡之特殊膠囊來烹煮單杯義式濃縮咖啡。其獲得巨大的成功,特別是在歐洲市場中。

圖一:Nespresso運作機制

來源:作者提供

Nespresso所獲致的成功,在歐洲引來了許多商業活動的競爭,試圖藉著生產與銷售這種機器或膠囊的仿製品,再以折扣價來和雀巢品牌競爭。這使得雀巢公司試圖運用其在Nespresso上所取得之智慧財產權,儘可能捍衛其之壟斷地位,同時在整個歐洲對競爭對手發起智財權戰爭。

其中最顯著的例子之一是在英國,雀巢公司在該國運用EP 2103236與侵權行為法,來對生產競爭機器與膠囊的Dualit公司提起侵權訴訟。Dualit生產的機器本身雖然不屬於專利EP 2103236的範圍內,但是其生產的膠囊則可適用於Nespresso的咖啡機,而因此Dualit可以基於該專利範圍之輔助侵權人的身分被提起訴訟。

這種情況非常有趣,因為其導入了一項對歐洲專利法來說非常特別的問題 – 含毒優先權。基本上EP 2103236僅由其之優先權母申請案中,主張部分優先權。在優先權母申請案中,該機器係被描述為具有一個只能在膠囊是位在特定的位置下(偏移和/或傾斜的)時,才能運作之膠囊殼體,而在審理中之EP 2103236的請求項,則已被修改為可以允許該殼體在介於其等之間的位置下運作。

圖二:Nespresso機器內部運作機制

來源:作者提供

一般來說這種作法不會構成問題,因為加入與優先權有關之標的是可以被接受的,但雀巢公司也將該優先權母案公開。這點在歐洲專利法律體制中就會造成問題,因為用於對Dualit提起訴訟的請求項,基於該請求項的撰寫之方式是有主張部分的優先權,而無法與未主張優先權之部分分離。結果在該審判中部分的請求項已被先前的公開文獻所預見,並且這也使得整個請求項無效。雀巢公司因而由於他們自己所造成之不幸的情境而敗訴,而此一案例目前在歐洲專利領域中也是有名的案例。

同一專利也在EPO中奮戰。其中有一組仿製公司攻擊了雀巢公司的專利。這是發生在英國案判決之後,但是由於其所被攻擊的方式,以及EPO用來審查的方法,EPO獲致了一個不同的結論。這個結論是,該請求項在該申請案提出申請時並不具基礎,因此該專利新增之標的是無效的。

目前雀巢公司與仿製公司之間的戰鬥已然升級。其在EPO中一個對手是一家叫做倫理咖啡的公司(Ethical Coffee Company;ECC)。 ECC是一家成立於2008年的獨立瑞士公司,其生產適合用於Nespresso咖啡機之咖啡膠囊。其本身以銷售生物可分解膠囊來進行銷售。

圖三:倫理咖啡公司生產之Nespresso咖啡膠囊相似品

來源:作者提供

其顯然已經取得一項運用在機器中之用於膠囊的鉤件,以在使用後將其自該機器中移出的歐洲核准專利。其最近開始在法國法院中對雀巢公司進行訴訟,因為其主張雀巢公司在2010年在其之機械中導入了可以在將該膠囊進行排空當時與之後,將其夾住並將維持在正確的位置的「魚叉機構」。此一魚叉機構(ECC所主張之標的,係為位在膠囊萃取殼體內之具有倒刺的鉤子之形式),顯然是為了阻止ECC的膠囊,使其不能在Nespresso咖啡機中正常運作。雀巢在目前仍然進行中之言詞審查程序中,也同時攻擊了ECC專利的有效性。

ECC在銷售使用該膠囊的咖啡機上,並不佔有主導地位(或者可以說尚未 - 他們以其之品牌推出一台機器被稱為U machine的機器),而只是販售可以用於其他機型的膠囊(也就是,Nespresso或仿製機器),但是ECC正藉著運用專利來對雀巢公司施加壓力。在整個歐洲的咖啡戰爭中,比較有趣的在於其說明了仿製公司是如何使用新穎方式,來攻擊市場中的領導者,而試圖排除阻擋他們進入市場的障礙(這些基本上就是他們的商業模式)。在Dualit公司的情況下,其係透過仔細研究EP優先權的細節,以及新增標的之更為精細的細節來達成,而ECC則是實際上已經提出專利申請,來涵蓋Nespresso機械的修改方案,以輔助其之膠囊的販售。同樣也很清楚的是,如果譬如雀巢這樣得公司想要維持在市場上的地位,就需要在仿製公司進入市場之前,進行研發與創新(並保護所獲致的進展)。

 

 
作者: 郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師
現任: 北美智權教育訓練處 /歐洲專利律師
經歷: Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師
Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師
Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 歐洲專利局 實習生
英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系,生化碩士
英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院,智財管理碩士

 


Innovation in patent tactics over coffee
Stefano John / NAIP Education & Training Group , European Patent Attorney

One of the large Swiss-based multinational company Nestlé’s most successful brands is Nespresso. Nespresso is a machine which makes single shots of espresso coffee. (Please see picture here below.) It involves using a specific machine with specific capsules containing coffee to produce a single shot of espresso coffee for each capsule. It has been a great success, especially in the European market.

The success of the Nespresso has led to many competing commercial activities in Europe to try and even compete by producing and selling generic versions of the machines or capsules at a discount to the Nestlé branded one. This has led to Nestlé to use its IP in Nespresso to try and defend its monopoly as much as possible and many IP battles across Europe against competitors.

One of the most notable instances was in the UK, where Nestlé used contributory infringement of EP2103236 and tort laws to sue Dualit, which produced a competing machine and capsules. The machine itself was outside the scope of patent EP2103236, but the capsules were suitable for the Nespresso machine and therefore Dualit could be accused as contributory infringers under the scope the patent.

This case was interesting because it introduced a problem very particular to European patent law – poisonous priorities. Basically EP2103236 enjoyed only partial priority from its priority application. In the priority application, the machine was described as having a housing for capsules that could only work if the capsule were in certain positions (offset and/or inclined), while in the patent being tried, EP2103236, the claim had been amended to allow the housing to work in positions in between.

Normally this would not be a problem because adding related subject matter to a priority is acceptable, but Nestlé let the priority also be published. This creates a problem in European patent law because the claim being used to sue Dualit enjoyed priority in part and that part, because of the manner in which the claim was drafted, could not be separated by the part that did not enjoy priority. As a result part of the claim in the trial was anticipated by the priority publication and this rendered the entire claim invalid. Thus Nestlé lost the case due to an unfortunate set of circumstances that originated of their own making and this case is now famous within European patent jurisprudence.

The same patent was also fought over at the EPO, where a group of generic companies attacked Nestlé’s patent. This was decided after the UK decision, but due to the manner in which it was attacked and the approach used by EPO proceedings, the EPO came to a different conclusion. The conclusion was that the claim had no basis in the application as filed and therefore the patent was rendered null and void for added subject-matter.

There is a now an escalation of the battle between Nestlé and the generic companies. One of the opponents at the EPO was a company called Ethical Coffee Company (ECC). ECC is an independent Swiss company set up in 2008 to produce coffee capsules suitable for use with the Nespresso machine. It markets itself as selling biodegradable capsules.

It has apparently obtained a granted EP patent to using hooks in a machine for use with capsules to release them from the machine after use. It recently started proceedings against Nestlé in French courts because it alleges that Nestlé introduced a “harpoon mechanism” into its machines in 2010, which grips the capsule and retains it in the correct position during and after emptying.  This harpoon mechanism (which, ECC contends, is in the form of a barbed hook within the capsule extraction housing) apparently stopped ECC’s capsules from working properly in Nespresso machines. Nestlé also has attacked the validity of the ECC patent before the EPO in oral proceedings which are still on-going.

ECC does not have a dominant position in the sale of coffee making machinery (or not yet – they associate their name with a machine called U machine) for use with capsules but only sale of capsules to be used with other (i.e. Nespresso/generic) machines, and yet ECC are piling pressure on Nestlé by using patents. What is interesting in that the coffee wars across Europe are illustrating how generic companies are using novel ways to attack the leader in the market in trying to remove obstacles to their entry in the market (which is basically their business model). In the case of Dualit, this was through careful attention to details of the EP priority and finer details of added subject matter, while ECC has actually filed patents to cover the modifications to Nespresso machinery which it requires to complement the sale of its own capsules. What is also clear is that if one wants to maintain one’s position in the market, like Nestlé, one needs to carry on developing and innovating (and protecting the advances) before the generics enter the market.

 

 
Author: Stefano John, European Patent Attorney
Experiences: European Patent Attorney, Bryers
Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA
Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi
Internship, EPO

 


Facebook 在北美智權報粉絲團上追踪我們