UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

ACT_589207/2023

A HAND-HELD CLEANING APPLIANCE

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresMunich LDApplication for provisional measures—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Dyson sought a preliminary injunction against SharkNinja's handheld vacuum cleaners in Germany and France based on EP 2 043 492. The Munich Local Division granted the PI, finding that Dyson acted without undue delay by filing within two months, that the patent's validity was sufficiently secure under a summary assessment, and that the accused products fell within the claim scope as construed in light of the description and drawings. The court declined Dyson's request for provisional cost reimbursement as no insolvency risk was alleged.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Application for provisional measures was filed without undue delay (within two months of becoming aware of infringement)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA

    Note: The Munich Local Division held that, given the need to investigate whether accused products use the patent's teaching and to prepare the case, filing within two months cannot generally be considered an unreasonable delay.

  • Claim interpretation based on description and drawings supports infringement finding

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(1) EPC; UPC_CoA_335/2023 principles

    Note: The court applied claim construction principles from the Court of Appeal and found the SharkNinja handheld vacuum models fell within the scope of Dyson's EP 2 043 492 claim 1.

  • Legal validity of EP 2 043 492 sufficiently established for purposes of provisional measures

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA

    Note: The court applied a summary validity assessment (limiting validity attacks to the three strongest arguments) and found the patent's legal standing sufficiently secure.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Preliminary cost reimbursement order should be granted in preliminary injunction proceedings

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 211.1(d) RoP

    Reason: The court held that in proceedings where main proceedings must follow, provisional cost reimbursement is not warranted absent special reasons such as insolvency risk of the opposing party, which Dyson did not plead.

  • Validity attacks (best three arguments) defeat the patent at PI stage

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA

    Reason: The court limited validity challenges to SharkNinja's three strongest arguments and found none sufficient to undermine the patent's validity for PI purposes.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
urgency / undue delay standard for provisional measures (two months presumptively acceptable)claim interpretation using description and drawings under Art. 69 EPC and CoA principlessummary validity assessment at PI stage limited to best three invalidity argumentsprovisional cost reimbursement requires special grounds (e.g., insolvency risk)

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The Munich Local Division applied the Court of Appeal's principles from UPC_CoA_335/2023 to interpret EP 2 043 492 claim 1 (hand-held cleaning appliance), noting that the scope of protection is primarily determined by the claim language in light of the description and drawings, and that interpretation may result in broader or narrower protection. The court found the SharkNinja models (IW3611EU, IW3611DE, IW1611EU, IW1611DE, BU1120DE) fell within the claim.