UPC CFI 443/2023
Nov 27, 2023·EP2043492 · A HAND-HELD CLEANING APPLIANCE
Action number: ACT 589207/2023
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedSet aside on appeal, Dec 3, 2024ActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Claimants
- Dyson Technology LimitedOperating co.
Respondents- SharkNinja Europe LimitedOperating co.
- SharkNinja Germany GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Wolrad Prinz zu Waldeck Und Pyrmont-Freshfields
- Caroline Horstmannsupporting-Freshfields
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- Other fieldsConsumer products
- Language
- German
- First decided
- May 21, 2024
- Appealed
- Set aside by UPC CoA 297/2024 · Dec 3, 2024
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Matthias Zigann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Walter Schober | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tobias Pichlmaier | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Pascal Weber | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Dyson Technology Limited (16 cases)·SharkNinja Europe Limited (6 cases)
This dispute contains 5 other proceedings
UPC CFI 588/2024·UPC CFI 322/2024·UPC CoA 297/2024·UPC APP 159/2025·UPC APP 5727/2025
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
- 2024-05-21Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: The Munich Local Division granted Dyson Technology Ltd. a preliminary injunction against SharkNinja Germany GmbH and SharkNinja Europe Limited, prohibiting them from offering or supplying certain handheld vacuum cleaners (models IW3611EU, IW3611DE, IW1611EU, IW1611DE, BU1120DE) in Germany and France that infringe EP 2 043 492, subject to Dyson commencing main proceedings within 31 calendar days or 20 working days.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Preliminary injunction
- Undue delay in filing
- Patent claim construction
- Validity in summary proceedings
- Balancing of interests
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-11-18 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-07-17 | Not public |
| Confirmation of appointment | 2024-07-17 | Public |
| Receipt | 2024-07-04 | Not public |
| Antrag auf Zugang zu Aufzeichnung der mV | 2024-07-04 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-06-04 | Not public |
| Confirmation of appointment | 2024-06-04 | Public |
| Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated | 2024-05-23 | Not public |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2024-05-22 | Not public |
| Measures_DecisionOutcome_Notification.pdf | 2024-05-22 | Not public |
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.
Application for provisional measures was filed without undue delay (within two months of becoming aware of infringement)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCANote: 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 principlesNote: 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 UPCANote: The court applied a summary validity assessment (limiting validity attacks to the three strongest arguments) and found the patent's legal standing sufficiently secure.
Preliminary cost reimbursement order should be granted in preliminary injunction proceedings
ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 211.1(d) RoPReason: 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 UPCAReason: The court limited validity challenges to SharkNinja's three strongest arguments and found none sufficient to undermine the patent's validity for PI purposes.
Browse other cases on this principle.
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.