Übersicht · Eingereicht: —
APL_32012/2024
A HAND-HELD CLEANING APPLIANCE
BerufungenHauptberufungCourt of AppealAppeal RoP220.1—
Parteien
Kläger
- Dyson Technology Limited
Vertreter: Constanze Krenz (DLA Piper); David Kleß (DLA Piper); Joschua Fiedler (DLA Piper)
Beklagte
- SharkNinja Europe Limited
- SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Vertreter: Wolrad Prinz zu Waldeck Und Pyrmont (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer); Christopher Stothers (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer); Kilian Seidel (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer); Caroline Horstmann (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer)
Richter
- Rian KaldenPresiding Judge
- Ingeborg SimonssonLegally Qualified Judge / Judge-Rapporteur
- Patricia RombachLegally Qualified Judge
- Graham AshleyTechnically Qualified Judge
- Max TilmannTechnically Qualified Judge
Patente
- EP 2 043 492
CPC-Codes: A47L5/24, A47L9/322, A47L9/32, A47L9/22, A47L9/28, A47L9/2857, A47L9/2884, A47L9/16
Sektor: Furniture & Household
Ausgang
PI abgelehnt
Eingereicht: —
Erste Entscheidung: 3. Dez. 2024
Sprache: —
Court of Appeal lifted the preliminary injunction granted by Munich Local Division against SharkNinja for alleged infringement of Dyson's EP 2 043 492 (hand-held vacuum cleaner). The Court found on the balance of probabilities it was not more likely than not that the patent was infringed, noting that the principal mode of separation in the SharkNinja product is a filter, not cyclonic separation as claimed. Dyson ordered to bear SharkNinja's costs for both instances.