UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1594/2025

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

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Patents
Division
Paris LD
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Consumer products
Language
English
First decided
Apr 10, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Paris LDLockedLocked
Judge Camille LignièresLockedLocked
Judge Carine GilletLockedLocked
Judge Marjolein VisserLockedLocked
Judge Giorgio CheccacciLockedLocked

At the UPC: SharkNinja Operating LLC (8 cases)·Groupe SEB France (5 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases

This dispute contains 4 other proceedings

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

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-04-10
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: 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 SharkNinja had previously withdrawn its provisional measures request concerning EP 3 689 201.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.

    Show the legal issues (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
Documents
Show all 343 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-07-07Not public
Other Documents2026-07-07Not public
Communication2026-07-07Not public
Other Documents2026-07-07Not public
Receipt2026-07-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-07Not public
Application document Defendant2026-07-07Not public
Communication2026-07-06Not public
Other Documents2026-07-06Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-07-03Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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)

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 UPCA; R. 211.1(d) RoP; R. 152.2 RoP; CoA Meril v. Edwards, 25 November 2025
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC