UPDATE: Swedish Court Rules EIS GMBH’s Patent is not valid, and LELO’s Products Do Not Infringe / Satisfyer responds to the court decision

On March 14, the editorial office of EAN received a press release from LELO. Below is the original text:

In a significant twofold legal victory, a Swedish District Court has ruled that EIS GMBH’s patent EP 3 228 297 (“Pressure Waves Massage Apparatus”) (“EP’297”) is invalid. The Court furthermore confirms that LELO’s suction product lines SONA, SILA, and ENIGMA, have not infringed the patent. While EIS may appeal this decision, it will rest on EIS to show the court erred in coming to its conclusions.

This decision confirms that LELO’s innovative designs and technologies are distinct and original, upholding the brand’s reputation for pioneering excellence in the intimate wellness industry.

LELO regards the judgment as a strong confirmation that Swedish retailers, distributors, and partners can comfortably sell the aforementioned LELO products throughout the Swedish territory.

The court’s judgment affirms LELO’s commitment to creating premium, high-quality products that stand out in the marketplace.

On March 18, Satisfyer issued a statement on this court ruling, which we are publishing here in the original text:

On 14 March 2025 the regional court of Stockholm has ruled that the Swedish part of the SATISFYER patent EP 3 228 297 would be invalid in Sweden and LELO’s products would not infringe the patent in Sweden. The regional court of Stockholm had based its decision on arguments brought forward by LELO, which had already been fully rejected by various other courts and in particular by the European Patent Office. 

Various other courts had decided that the LELO products Sona, Sila and Enigma infringe the SATISFYER patent. The European Patent Office had confirmed the validity of this patent. LELO has appealed these decisions.

The decision of the regional court of Stockholm applies only to Sweden and does not affect our legal standing in other countries. This is merely a first instance ruling. We strongly disagree with the decision and will pursue all legal options in the appeal stage. This Swedish ruling does not change our global position, and we remain fully committed to protecting our innovations and ensuring fair competition in the market.