UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

APL 32012/2024

·EP2043492: A HAND-HELD CLEANING APPLIANCE

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Constanze Krenz (DLA Piper); David Kleß (DLA Piper); Joschua Fiedler (DLA Piper)
Beklagte
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)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Furniture & Household
Sprache
Erste Entscheidung
3. Dez. 2024
Entscheidungen
  • 2024-12-03
    PI abgelehntBerufungsentscheidungAppeal RoP220.1

    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.

    Rechtsfragen:Provisional measures - balance of probabilities of infringementCyclonic separation vs. filter separationClaim interpretation (hand-held vacuum cleaner)
Dokumente
  • SharkNinja%20v%20Dyson%20order%203%20December%202024%20EN%20anonym.pdf2024-12-03GERMAN