Overview · Filed: —
APL_32012/2024
A HAND-HELD CLEANING APPLIANCE
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppeal RoP220.1—
Parties
Claimants
- Dyson Technology Limited
Reps: Constanze Krenz (DLA Piper); David Kleß (DLA Piper); Joschua Fiedler (DLA Piper)
Respondents
- SharkNinja Europe Limited
- SharkNinja Germany GmbH
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)
Judges
- Rian KaldenPresiding Judge
- Ingeborg SimonssonLegally Qualified Judge / Judge-Rapporteur
- Patricia RombachLegally Qualified Judge
- Graham AshleyTechnically Qualified Judge
- Max TilmannTechnically Qualified Judge
Patents
- EP 2 043 492
CPC codes: A47L5/24, A47L9/322, A47L9/32, A47L9/22, A47L9/28, A47L9/2857, A47L9/2884, A47L9/16
Sector: Furniture & Household
Outcome
PI denied
Filed: —
First decided: Dec 3, 2024
Language: —
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.