UPClytics
View all cases

APL 32012/2024

·EP2043492: A HAND-HELD CLEANING APPLIANCE

Case details
Status
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Constanze Krenz (DLA Piper); David Kleß (DLA Piper); Joschua Fiedler (DLA Piper)
Respondents
Reps: 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
Judges
Technology
Furniture & Household
Language
First decided
Dec 3, 2024
Decisions
  • 2024-12-03
    PI deniedAppeal decisionAppeal 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.

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