UPC APP 52471/2024
—·EP2043492: A HAND-HELD CLEANING APPLIANCE
- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartVerfahrensantragKategorieSonstige prozessuale
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter: Constanze Krenz (DLA Piper); David Kleß (DLA Piper); Joschua Fiedler (DLA Piper)BeklagteVertreter: 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
- Rian Kalden · Presiding judge
- Ingeborg Simonsson · Legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur
- Patricia Rombach · Legally qualified judge
- Graham Ashley · Technically qualified judge
- Max Tilmann · Technically qualified judge
- Technology
- Furniture & Household
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 9. Okt. 2024
- 2024-10-09BerufungsentscheidungGeneric application
The Court of Appeal ruled on Dyson's application to exclude certain grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja that were not included in the statement of grounds of appeal, and on SharkNinja's application to admit new evidence. The order addressed admissibility of late-raised invalidity attack combinations (lack of inventive step based on various prior art combinations) and admission of new evidence under Rule 222.2 RoP.
Rechtsfragen:Admission of appeal grounds not stated in statement of grounds of appeal under Rule 222.1 and 226 RoPAdmission of new evidence on appeal under Rule 222.2 RoP - 2024-10-09Generic application
The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on Dyson's request to disregard certain SharkNinja grounds of appeal and on SharkNinja's submission of new evidence (FBD 27) in the appeal against the Munich Local Division's order concerning EP 2 043 492. The court found that SharkNinja had sufficiently incorporated its first-instance submissions into the appeal grounds and rejected Dyson's request to disregard grounds (a)-(d). Ground (e) regarding JP 573 was not separately addressed given the court's assessment. New evidence FBD 27 (US proceedings submission) was found to be new and SharkNinja's justification for its late submission was accepted.
Rechtsfragen:Admissibility of grounds of appeal (R. 226 RoP)Incorporation of first-instance submissions into grounds of appeal (R. 222.1 RoP)New evidence in appeal proceedings (R. 222.2 RoP)Right to be heard regarding late-dismissed submissions at first-instance hearing
- 805ED9C0100EC59EA30726FF6AF30D63_de.pdf2024-10-09GERMAN
- Order%20on%20grounds%20of%20appeal%20SharkNinja%20v%20Dyson%20EN.pdf2024-10-09GERMAN