UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 1594/2025

14. Nov. 2025·EP3689198 +1 more · COOKING DEVICE AND COMPONENTS THEREOF

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Patente
Division
Paris LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Other fields
    Consumer products
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
10. Apr. 2026
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Einstweilige Verfügung erlassenMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC54% (38/70)124
Paris LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Camille LignièresGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Carine GilletGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Marjolein VisserGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Giorgio CheccacciGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: SharkNinja Operating LLC (8 Verfahren)·Groupe SEB France (5 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren

Dieser Streit umfasst 4 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 3375/2026·UPC CFI 3376/2026·UPC CFI 1599/2026·UPC CoA 61/2026

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Paris LD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-10
    Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Paris Local Division dismissed SharkNinja's application for provisional measures based on EP 3 689 198, finding it more likely than not that all asserted claims (1, 2, 4-8) are invalid for lack of novelty over prior art CN202312830U (CN 830). SharkNinja had previously withdrawn its provisional measures request concerning EP 3 689 201. SharkNinja was ordered to bear SEB's legal costs and to pay an interim costs award of EUR 120,000 corresponding to the EP 201 portion of the proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (7)
    • Novelty of claims 1, 2, 4-8 of EP 3 689 198 over CN202312830U (CN 830) and WO2015062197A1 (WO 197)
    • Implicit disclosure in prior art — whether a fan for air-frying is implicitly disclosed by CN 830 Fig. 2
    • Claim interpretation of 'to couple' (direct vs. indirect coupling of second lid)
    • Claim interpretation of 'to cover' (lid covering the hollow chamber opening)
    • Admissibility of fallback claim combination (Claims 1 and 8) in provisional measures proceedings
    • Costs allocation following partial withdrawal (EP 201) and dismissal (EP 198)
    • Interim award of costs under R. 211.1(d) RoP
Dokumente
Alle 343 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Mitteilung2026-07-07Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-07-07Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-07-07Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-07-07Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-07-07Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-07-07Nicht öffentlich
Application document Defendant2026-07-07Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-07-06Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-07-06Nicht öffentlich
Hearing recording reference document2026-07-03Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • CN 830 discloses all features of Claim 1 including an air-frying mode, because a skilled person would understand the 'three-dimensional grilling' burner in CN 830 as an air fryer function, and would implicitly read a fan from the electric motor with downward-pointing axis shown in Fig. 2

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC; Art. 138(1)(a) EPC; R. 211.2 RoP

  • CN 830 implicitly discloses a bayonet coupling for Claim 2, as teeth visible in Fig. 1 would be understood by a skilled person as part of a bayonet coupling

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC

  • Claims 5 and 6 are invalid for lack of novelty over CN 830, which discloses an electric motor with axis for a fan (Claim 5) and, given motor/fan/heating element positions, the air movement device draws air through the second heating element (Claim 6)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC

  • Claim 7 is invalid for lack of novelty over CN 830, as bayonet coupling of second lid (pressure cooker lid) to housing in a pressure cooking mode is inherently present

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC

  • Claim 8 is invalid for lack of novelty over CN 830, which clearly discloses a pressure cooker with a pot cover and bayonet coupling, constituting a pressure cooking lid

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC

  • SHARKNINJA is the unsuccessful party for both EP 198 (dismissed) and EP 201 (withdrawn) and must bear SEB's legal costs

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(1) and (3) UPCA; R. 150(2) RoP

  • Interim costs award is capped at 50% of the ceiling of recoverable costs (EUR 300,000 for entire case), with EP 201 portion set at EUR 120,000 given no oral hearing was held for that part

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 UPCA; R. 211.1(d) RoP; R. 152.2 RoP; CoA Meril v. Edwards, 25 November 2025
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • CN 830 does not disclose a fan/air movement device because the device is a lightwave oven, not an air fryer, and microwave/lightwave ovens do not use fans to direct air onto food

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC

  • The electric motor visible in CN 830 Fig. 2 could be driving only a cooling fan, not an air-circulation fan

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 54 EPC

  • The fallback combination of Claims 1 and 8 should be considered as an alternative basis for the provisional measures request

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 263.3 RoP; CoA UPC_CoA_898/2025 Onward v. Niche

  • 'To couple' in Claim 1 encompasses indirect coupling of the second lid via an intermediate component, not only direct coupling by the lid's own fixing means

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC