SC Judgment 365/2013. Vorwerk vs Taurus

The German company manufacturing the Kitchen robot known as THERMOMIX, filed a claim for breach of its patents ES 2117423, ES2201615 Y ES 2252900 against the Spanish company Taurus. The claim was lodged before the Barcelona Mercantile  Court Nº 5 that finally rendered a judgment indicating that the MyCook robot infringed Worwerk’s patent ES2201615.

Both parties appealed the judgment before the Provincial Chamber of Appeals that finally issued judgment on July 1, 2010 whereby Worwerk’s appeal was rejected in full and Taurus counterclaim was admitted (in part) by declaring null and void vindications 1 to 18 and 20 to 24 of Spanish Patent ES2201615 that was the core of the decision of the first instance court.

VORWERK filed a remedy for Cassation and Breach of Procedures before the Supreme Court that has now decided against Worwerk by rejecting both remedies and declaring that Vorwerk was due to pay all legal costs associated with the Appeal.

The Supreme Court supports the decision of the Chamber of Appeals by arguing that the Chamber was right in assessing that the first vindication of Taurus patent implies that the Taurus product does not have the inherent ability of Vorwerk’s product to simultaneously heat and mix. Thus concluding, together with other considerations, that no breach of patent actually existed.

In connection with Vorwerks’ allegations that the claim was not consistent the Supreme Court ruled that a judgment that rejects a claim is not inconsistent unless (i) it unduly ignores that one of the parties has fully recognized the merits of the other party’s claim; (ii) the rejection of the main claim is due to the admission of a counterclaim or a non expressed exception (except when the exception should have been considered “ex-officio” by the court; or (iii) overlooks an express or implied admission of the facts by the defendant, thus concluding that judgments that relieve defendants from liability are normally not inconsistent when and if they decide on all petitions in the claim.

According to the attorney for the defendant Taurus, the judgment was favorable to Taurus, among other reasons, because Vorwerk’s main patents had expired and the action referred only to some of the elements encompassed by its patents.

This judgment may not – by itself –put an end to the dispute, as there are other claims in progress in Italy, Portugal, France and Germany