Court Says Lelo Misled Public in Patent Dispute With Satisfyer

DÜSSELDORF/HILDESHEIM, Germany—A German court has ruled that Lelo provided incorrect and misleading information in an ongoing patent dispute, per an English-language version of the court order reviewed by AVN. The order sides with counsel representing EIS, the parent company of Lelo's rival pleasure brand, Satisfyer.  The two companies have been locked in a protracted legal battle over the dispute. A district court in Düsseldorf ruled over the summer that Lelo's Sona, Sila and Enigma clitoral vibrators violated the EIS patents used in Satisfyer's line of pressure wave vibrators, per AVN's previous coverage on this case. During preliminary injunction proceedings in Hildesheim, the district court ruled in favor of EIS in the claim that Lelo "included incorrect and misleading statements" about the ongoing patent infringement proceeding targeting Lelo product lines. After the Düsseldorf court ruled in favor of EIS, Lelo's European operation reportedly published a press release that mischaracterized the status of the case. Lelo has since appealed. Such a ruling builds on an additional determination reached in 2022 by the European Patent Office. Lelo Europe filed an opposition to the EIS patent, but the Patent Office rejected the filing. This gives a strong legal grounding against Lelo in other cases pending in other countries, argues Satisfyer's parent company. EIS says that Lelo is prohibited from selling its products in the jurisdiction where Lelo was found infringing on the patents. Litigation is pending in Sweden, Australia, Canada and other European countries. "EIS is encouraged by the recent decision of the Hildesheim court to offer former distributors of our competitor Lelo, as well as other companies that will respect our patent rights, the opportunity to collaborate with us in promoting and distributing our Satisfyer products," a company spokesperson said in a press release. A representative for Lelo sent AVN a statement characterizing the company's view on the ruling as "unfortunate." "Lelo would like to make known that the judgment of the Düsseldorf Regional Court only applies to patent infringement actions in the territory of Germany; it has no bearing anywhere else in the world," reads Lelo's statement. "Accordingly, Lelo customers and clients based outside of Germany are not prohibited to offer or sell Lelo products outside of the German market."  Here, Lelo's spokesperson directly addresses claims that the Hildesheim court sided with EIS on claims that Lelo mischaracterized the Düsseldorf court's action. "Lelo thoroughly disagrees with the court’s decision and has immediately filed an appeal against the first instance decision, which will be decided by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf," the company added. "Lelo remains dedicated to its mission of delivering high-quality, innovative products to its customers."