More specifically, it concerns an infringement matter between Groupe SEB and Jarden Consumer Solutions over SEB’s patent, ‘Deep Fryer with Automatic Fat Cooking’.
Although deep frying, which involves immersion in oil, is recognised as being unhealthy, it remains one of the only ways of preparing certain foods, including chips. However, the technology developed by SEB uses a method described as ‘dry frying’ because it doesn’t involve immersing the food in oil and fat, instead using a process of ‘mingling’, which stirs and mixes the food to coat it in a thin layer of oil.
SEB took Jarden to court in the UK, alleging that its Breville ‘Halo Health’ fryer infringes the claims of its patent. The Breville Halo Health fryer is marketed as a healthy fryer that uses ‘99.5% less oil than a standard fryer’.
The judge ruled that Jarden had indeed infringed certain claims made by the patent, but SEB lost one of its key claims in the process.
The patent in question laid claim to the technology used in the fryer to coat food automatically in a thin layer of fat as it cooks.
The technology used in the Halo Health fryer, referred to as a ‘stirrer’, consists of a bar and a paddle attached to a hub. During cooking, the hub and paddle are mechanically connected and rotate together. The bar remains stationary relative to the cooking vessel and the rotating hub and paddle.
The court considered experiments by Jarden and counter-arguments by SEB, and came to the conclusion that the flick of the paddle as it passes over the bar makes an important contribution to the stirring and mixing of the food with the oil. The bar and the paddle move relative to the cooking vessel, and both kinds of movement contribute to the stirring and mixing. Accordingly, the requirements of this particular claim are met by the Halo Health fryer and it could be considered to infringe.
However, two pieces of prior art – meaning any information that was available to the public before the patent application was filed – brought to light similar technologies. For this reason, the judge decided that this particular patent claim was no longer valid.
This highlights the importance of ‘prior art’ in enforcing patent rights. It remains to be seen whether either Jarden or SEB will appeal the decision.
Joanna Thurston is a partner and patent attorney at Withers & Rogers. This is a personal blog and views expressed are her own.
© FoodBev Media Ltd 2024