UK Supreme Court defines “makes” in Schütz v Werit
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

UK Supreme Court defines “makes” in Schütz v Werit


After three judgments over nearly five years in the Schütz v Werit dispute, we now finally know what is meant by the word “makes” in the UK Patents Act 1977

In a decision today, the UK Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, finding that providing replacement bottles for crates did not amount to patent infringement. The ruling could have implications in cases involving other consumable goods, such as ink cartridges and coffee capsules.


The Schütz case concerned intermediate bulk containers, which consist of a replaceable bottle or container to store liquids, housed in a steel cage. The patent covered the cage and Schütz argued that Werit was infringing by supplying replacement bottles.

Lord Justice Neuberger (right), who wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court, rejected the approaches taken by both the first instance and appeal courts, saying: “The first question to consider is whether either of the Courts below adopted the right approach to the question which they had to decide. In my view, they did not.”

However, he reached the same conclusion as the High Court Judge, Mr Justice Floyd, namely that Werit did not infringe.

Neuberger adopted a more nuanced approach than the Court of Appeal, saying that “the question of whether replacing a part of a patented article constitutes ‘making’ is a matter of fact and degree”. He set out numerous factors to be considered in this evaluation.

In this case, he said, the bottle was a freestanding, replaceable component, had no connection with the claimed inventive concept, has a shorter life expectancy and could not be described as the main component of the article.

The judge discussed the previous UK cases, notably United Wire, as well as German case law, in some depth, and argued that his approach was consistent with both.

However, some patent owners may feel that their rights are more limited following this decision than they were before.

Stephen Bennett of Hogan Lovells, who acted for Werit, conceded that might be the case, but only for certain inventions. “In some cases, the invention will be in the replacement part,” he told Managing IP. He added that patent drafters in these types of cases should pay attention to “how they characterise the invention and where it resides”.

Patent owners may also look to other rights, including designs and branding, to protect their market share. Indeed, there was a trade markaspect to this case in the UK.

The case may have an impact on pending litigation relating to the Nespresso coffee machines, which was due to start in the High Court this week.

Werit was represented by barristers Simon Thorley QC and Thomas Mitcheson and Hogan Lovells. Schütz was represented by Richard Meade QC and Lindsay Lane and SNR Denton.

Managing IP understands that patent litigation between the parties is continuing in Germany and Australia.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partners at Quinn Emanuel explain how walkie-talkie and real-estate analogies helped them win over a jury at the Eastern District of Texas
The heads of Malaysian firm HHQ’s new technology practice group say they can be frontline advisers on the intersection between AI, blockchain, and IP
Darren Jiron, Finnegan’s managing partner in London, discusses the firm’s growth plans and misconceptions about US firm culture
The EMEA region research cycle has commenced - do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work from 2023!
A former partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, which voted to dissolve in October, has joined McCarter & English
As ChatGPT celebrates its first birthday, we are still grappling with a multitude of IP concerns
Sources say an official role at an IP industry body is great for generating business leads, but that shouldn’t be the only motivation behind taking on the responsibility
Breton is commissioner for the internal market in the EU at the European Commission
Kupecz is a judge at the UPC Central Division in Germany
Hakki is senior partner at Shearman & Sterling in the US and Dejonghe is senior partner at Allen & Overy in London