SodaStream Industries v Aarke (CFI, 10 October 2024)

Date	10 October 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_55249/2024 · ORD_55600/2024
Parties	Aarke AB

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 10 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_373/2023, ACT_580849/2023, App_55249/2024), the Düsseldorf Local Division (Thomas, presiding, Dr Thom, Kupecz) dismissed Aarke’s request to adjourn the oral hearing in SodaStream Industries’ infringement action on EP 1793917 pending the Court of Appeal’s order on the dismissal of its request for security for costs. The order clarifies the reach of Art. 74(3) UPCA.

Question

Does a pending appeal against the refusal of security for costs require the oral hearing on the merits to be adjourned?

Decision

No. Aarke gave no convincing reason for an adjournment, and nothing suggested that holding the hearing would be inefficient or not cost-effective. Art. 74(3) UPCA only prevents the first instance from deciding on the merits before the Court of Appeal has ruled on certain orders listed exhaustively. Security for costs is not among them. In any event, the division could defer delivering its decision on the merits depending on how the hearing goes.

Key points for practice

Practical point: an appeal against an order on security for costs does not suspend the main action and does not in itself justify adjourning the hearing.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 74(3)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 334(b) and 336

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantAarke AB7 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division rejette la demande de renvoi de l'audience, l'appel contre le rejet de la garantie pour frais ne relevant pas des ordonnances visées à l'article 74, paragraphe 3, de l'Accord.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 1 793 917 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 1 793 917` A device for carbonating a liquid with pressurized gas recorded proprietor: Sodastream Industries Ltd	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): SodaStream Industries v Aarke (CFI, 31 October 2024) · Aarke v Sodastream Industries (CoA, 19 February 2025) · Aarke v SodaStream Industries (CoA, 29 November 2024) · SodaStream Industries v Aarke (CFI, 6 September 2024) · SodaStream Industries v Aarke (CFI, 5 August 2024) · Aarke v SodaStream Industries (CFI, 16 January 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.