|
Listen to this article |
Left, Ocado’s automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS), and right, AutoStore’s ASRS. | Source: Ocado, AutoStore.
Ocado Group and AutoStore Holdings have announced a complete settlement of all claims between the companies in their global patent dispute. The dispute began in October 2020, when AutoStore asserted that Ocado infringed upon six of its patents, and included lawsuits in both the UK and the US.
Both AutoStore and Ocado operate automated storage and retrieval systems (ASRS) that operate on similar principles. The terms of the new settlement include AutoStore paying £200 million, around $256 million, to Ocado in installments over the next two years. All of the patent litigation claims are also being withdrawn globally.
Ocado and AutoStore both agreed to a mutually beneficial global cross-license of each other’s pre-2020 patents, and both companies can continue to use and market all of their existing products without challenge. Under the terms of the agreement, Ocado retains exclusive rights to the Single Space Robot.
“I am pleased we have been able to settle the disputes in a constructive and collaborative manner,” Tim Steiner, CEO of Ocado, said. “We can now each move forward and concentrate on providing our partners with world-beating technology.”
“We are glad to have achieved a resolution that gives both companies [the] opportunity and freedom to commercialize our extensive patent portfolios,” Mat Hovland Vikse, CEO of AutoStore, said. “This settlement resolves our differences and allows us to continue focusing on our respective business goals.”
Earlier this year, the UK High Court ruled that AutoStore’s patents were invalid because AutoStore had disclosed its technology publically in a business deal with the Central Bank of Russia before the company filed its patents.
In December 2021, AutoStore lost a similar patent infringement lawsuit filed with the International Trade Commission (ITC). US ITC Judge Charles Bullock ruled three of AutoStore’s patents involved in the case were invalid, and that Ocado didn’t infringe upon the fourth patent in the trial.
