UPC CoA 297/2024

Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on SharkNinja's application for a stay of cost assessment proceedings and/or extension of time. The Court held that the one-month period for lodging an application for a cost decision (R. 151.1 RoP) begins with service of the decision on the merits, not with service of the provisional measures order. The cost assessment was not stayed pending the merits proceedings.

Court of Appeal dismissed SharkNinja's application for suspension of cost-determination proceedings (R. 295(d) RoP) as inadmissible, because the one-month period for filing a cost-determination application (R. 151 RoP) starts from service of the merits decision, not from service of the preliminary injunction order. Since no merits decision had yet been issued, the application was premature. The court further noted that R. 150/151 RoP apply by analogy where no main proceedings are initiated after unsuccessful provisional measures.

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.

The Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance preliminary injunction granted against SharkNinja, holding that on a balance of probabilities it was not more likely than not that SharkNinja's product infringed claim 1 of Dyson's patent (EP not specified in excerpt). Dyson was ordered to bear SharkNinja's costs in both instances.

The Court of Appeal refused SharkNinja's application to admit new evidence (an exhibit from US proceedings, FBD 29) in the appeal from the Munich Local Division in Dyson's infringement action, finding that the evidence was not sufficiently relevant to the appellate issues concerning patent claim interpretation and that no justified reason for late submission had been established.

The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on Dyson's request to disregard certain SharkNinja grounds of appeal and on SharkNinja's submission of new evidence (FBD 27) in the appeal against the Munich Local Division's order concerning EP 2 043 492. The court found that SharkNinja had sufficiently incorporated its first-instance submissions into the appeal grounds and rejected Dyson's request to disregard grounds (a)-(d). Ground (e) regarding JP 573 was not separately addressed given the court's assessment. New evidence FBD 27 (US proceedings submission) was found to be new and SharkNinja's justification for its late submission was accepted.

The Court of Appeal ruled on Dyson's application to exclude certain grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja that were not included in the statement of grounds of appeal, and on SharkNinja's application to admit new evidence. The order addressed admissibility of late-raised invalidity attack combinations (lack of inventive step based on various prior art combinations) and admission of new evidence under Rule 222.2 RoP.