Shower brand Kohler Mira has won a patent infringement case against Triton’s parent company, after accusing it of copying its electric shower technology.
Mira argued that Triton’s DuElec range of showers infringed on its patent used in its dual outlet electric shower, and began proceedings in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in December 2022.
Triton, which is part of Norcros Group, denied the infringement and counterclaimed for a revocation of the patent.
The infringement trial took place between July 8 and 9 earlier this year, with the judgment being eventually handed down in the case earlier this week.
Judge Melissa Clarke ruled in favour of Mira, arguing that its patent was valid and had been infringed. The judge decided that Mira’s concept was sufficiently inventive to deserve protection.
Mills & Reeve LLP, arguing on behalf of Kohler Mira, said that its client’s patent identifies the potential risk in dual outlet electric showers’ diverter valves slowing the flow of water, which could potentially create an unreasonably high water temperature that could lead to scalding.
The company’s 2008 patent was filed to overcome this risk, and claims: “the diverter valve is configured so that the flow rate is substantially unchanged during changeover.”
During the case, Triton tried to challenge Mira’s patent on the basis of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency. However, Judge Clarke decided: “Mira took the small and simple step of identifying the problem which I have found was known in the common general knowledge but appreciating that it could be solved by the installation of a diverter valve which leaves the flow rate substantially unchanged during changeover from one outlet to the other. That solution was under the noses of all of those involved in the design of electrics showers, yet they had not solved it.”
After the outcome of the trial, Claire O’Brien, head of intellectual property litigation at Mills & Reeve LLP commented: “We are delighted to secure this resounding High Court victory for Mira.
“Mira is a highly innovative business with IP at its heart. It is willing to protect that investment by taking enforcement action through the courts when necessary. This win confirms Mira’s position as innovators and is a further illustration of the suitability of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court as an effective forum in which to litigate such disputes.”
Emma Foster, managing director of Kohler Mira, also added: “We are thrilled with the fantastic result of our case against Triton, which has been ongoing for 2 years. Kohler Mira invests significantly in research and development in the UK; one of the guiding principles of our company is to live on the leading edge of design and innovation, and it’s vital that this is backed with a strong commitment to enforce our intellectual property.
“Consequently, we will always act to vehemently protect that investment, and our customers, if our intellectual property rights are infringed. We would like to extend our thanks to the legal team at Mills & Reeve and Three New Square IP for helping us to secure this comprehensive victory.”
Following the trial, Phil Viner, Commercial Director at Triton Showers, said: “Over the past 24 months, we have been defending a legal dispute brought by Kohler Mira, concerning a component used in our DuElec® electric shower range. Despite our legal team having confidently and vigorously defended Triton’s position in this matter, our robust challenge has unfortunately been unsuccessful.
“We find the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court’s decision both surprising and disappointing and will be seeking permission from the Court to appeal the judgment early in the new year. As the court has not yet ruled on the consequences of its decision, we are able to continue to manufacture and sell the DuElec shower range at least until that time, to ensure uninterrupted supply to our customers, and consumers.
“As the case is ongoing, our legal team will continue to handle this matter in accordance with the findings and instructions of the court, and we will not be commenting further.”
The judgment is now subject to appeal.
