Editing Senseo (section)

=== Dispute in Belgium ===
On February 20, 2004, the [[Trial court|Court of First Instance]] of [[Antwerp]], Belgium, ruled in a [[lawsuit]] between three Belgian coffee vendors, [[Naamloze vennootschap|N.V.]] Fort Koffiebranderij, [[S.A. (corporation)|S.A.]] Cafés Liégeois and N.V. Beyers Koffie, versus Philips and Douwe Egberts over the European patent, and decided that the other coffee vendors were allowed to produce and market coffee pods that fit the Senseo. The Senseo creators had used their patent to get an injunction against the marketing of coffee pods by other coffee brands, and those others replied by seeking a declaratory judgment of non-[[patent infringement|infringement]]. {{Citation needed|date=February 2007}}

One consideration the Belgian judge offered for the ruling is that coffee pods already existed. That ruling ended the Senseo coffee pod monopoly, and following that ruling, practically every coffee vendor in the [[Benelux]] countries started production of coffee pods. The Antwerp ruling affects the patents on the pods, but does not affect the patents on the Senseo machine itself.<ref>{{Cite web |last=ANP |date=2006-08-31 |title=Douwe Egberts verliest octrooi op Senseo-koffiepads |url=https://www.nu.nl/economie/815092/douwe-egberts-verliest-octrooi-op-senseo-koffiepads.html |access-date=2025-04-25 |website=nu.nl |language=nl}}</ref>

An appeal in court changed this patent matter, and the new judgement was that the other coffee makers were infringing on the European patent in Belgium.<ref>[http://www.vanbaelbellis.com/files/BE%2012-05-105925A.pdf "Douwe Egberts Regains Monopoly to Commercialise Coffee Pads for its Senseo Coffee Machines"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213829/http://www.vanbaelbellis.com/files/BE%2012-05-105925A.pdf |date=2007-09-27 }}, Van Bael & Bellis on Belgian Business Law, volume 2005, No. 12, page 7</ref>