STOCKHOLM — The European Patent Office (EPO) Board of Appeals last week ruled in favor of pleasure brand LELO in the company's ongoing dispute with Satisfyer parent company EIS GmbH.
The decision revokes EIS's patent for its "Pressure Waves Massage Apparatus" (Patent "EP '297") and allows European retailers and distributors to sell LELO's Sona, Sila, and Enigma lines of air suction pleasure products.
“The Board of Appeals determined that EP ‘297 is not valid and has been revoked. This decision is final and non-appealable," LELO said in a statement.
"This decision confirms what LELO believed all along — its innovative designs and technologies are distinct and original, upholding the brand's reputation for pioneering excellence in the intimate wellness industry,” the rep added.
As reported by XBIZ in March, a Swedish district court originally ruled that the patent filed by EIS was not valid. That decision was appealed by EIS, leading to last week's decision.
This followed a ruling in a German court last August upholding the patent and ordering LELO to cease distributing the three product lines within that court's jurisdiction.
Reached for comment, a spokesperson for Satisfyer declined to comment on the matter at this time.
Update, October 8: Satisfyer responded to the ruling, as well as LELO's comments, with a statement from CEO Sven Pelka.
"Satisfyer confirms that on Sept. 30, 2025, the Board of Appeals of the European Patent Office
issued a decision revoking Satisfyer’s European Patent EP 3 228 297 B1," the statement reads. "This decision has no impact on our ability to manufacture, market, or sell Satisfyer products. You can continue to rely on the same uninterrupted supply of our products and the trusted support you are accustomed to.
"This European Patent represented only a small part of the global intellectual property portfolio of the Satisfyer Group," Pelka continues. "In addition to other registered patents and pending patent applications
covering pressure-wave technology (Air Pulse), the worldwide intellectual property portfolio of the
Satisfyer Group includes numerous additional patents, design rights and trademarks which protect
Satisfyer’s innovative products."
The statement goes on to dispute LELO's characterization of the decision, saying that there were no statements made by the Board regarding LELO's "designs and technologies."
