Brita prevails again in filter cartridge dispute
Water filter manufacturer Brita has won against competitor Wessper at the UPC's Düsseldorf local division. In its judgment, the court clarified the interpretation of exhaustion and indirect patent infringement, which particularly applies to consumer goods for which spare parts are regularly replaced. This case concerns the interaction between a water carafe and water filter.
21 April 2026 by Christina Schulze
Water filters are popular in households to remove certain substances, such as limescale, from tap water prior to consumption. The filters in water carafes are typically replaced at regular intervals to achieve the desired purity. Manufacturer Brita is currently taking action against several competitors who are challenging its market share for these filter cartridges.
Brita has now achieved an important partial success at the Düsseldorf local division. The court clarified the question of exhaustion of the patent claim for replacement parts in accordance with Art. 29 UPCA. Previously, the Munich local division had taken the same view in a dispute between Brita and its competitor Aquashield (case ID: UPC_CFI_248/2024).
Patent lapsed
The Düsseldorf judges Ronny Thomas, Jule Schumacher, Mojca Mlakar, and Laura Daniel clarified in their decision that an exception to the exhaustion rule applies in this case because the replacement part of the filter cartridge realises the inventive concept. This occurs in conjunction with the water carafe and through the asserted combination of several claims in EP1 748 830.
Düsseldorf local division found Wessper guilty of indirect infringement. As the patent expired during the proceedings, which have been ongoing since December 2024, Brita subsequently asserted claims for information and accounting.
-
- Jasper Werhahn
-
- Andreas Kabisch
A team from Meissner Bolte represented Brita. It comprised lawyers Andreas Kabisch (co-lead) and Niels Schuh, as well as patent attorneys Jasper Werhahn (co-lead) and Constantijn van Lookeren Campagne. Brita is a long-standing prosecution client of the firm. The company also works with Meissner Bolte in other proceedings, such as the Aquashield case.
In other proceedings, however, the Brita works with other law firms. In the proceedings against Aqua Select, for example, a team from Preu Bohlig & Partner represented the company. Andreas Haberl and Konstantin Schallmoser led the case at the Düsseldorf Regional Court. They left the firm to launch spin-off Bonabry, together with patent attorneys Klaus Mehler and Niels Elzenheimer from Mehler and Achler.
Karsten Königer
According to the judgment, Karsten Königer from the long-established Hamburg IP law firm Harmsen Utescher represents Wessper.
Aquashield worked with a team led by Sönke Scheltz from Eisenführ Speiser in the proceedings at the local division Munich.
In the proceedings at Düsseldorf Regional Court, Aqua Select also relied on a team from Eisenführ Speiser under the lead of Tilman Müller. He moved to Bardehle Pagenberg with a team in 2023.
