UPC CoA 297/2024

At the UPC: SharkNinja Germany GmbH (7 cases)·Dyson Technology Limited (16 cases)

• 2025-01-20
  Public

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Application for cost decision (R. 150, R. 151 RoP)
  • Stay of cost assessment proceedings (R. 295(d) RoP)
  • Timing of cost application after provisional measures
• 2024-12-03
  Appeal RoP220.1Public

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Provisional measures - balance of probabilities of infringement
  • Cyclonic separation vs. filter separation
  • Claim interpretation (hand-held vacuum cleaner)
• 2024-10-21
  Public

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Admissibility of new evidence in appeal under R. 222.2 RoP
  • Timing and justified reasons for late submission of evidence
  • Estoppel by conduct (contradictory claim interpretation in US proceedings)
• 2024-10-09
  Public

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Admissibility of grounds of appeal (R. 226 RoP)
  • Incorporation of first-instance submissions into grounds of appeal (R. 222.1 RoP)
  • New evidence in appeal proceedings (R. 222.2 RoP)
  • Right to be heard regarding late-dismissed submissions at first-instance hearing