UPC CoA 61/2026
Apr 27, 2026·EP3689198 +1 more · COOKING DEVICE AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Respondents
- Groupe SEB FranceOperating co.
- S.A.S. SEBOperating co.
- SEB International Service (SIS)Operating co.
- Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Thomas Bouvet-Jones Day
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technology
- Other fieldsConsumer products
- Language
- English
- First decided
- May 22, 2026
- Last decision
- Oct 5, 2026
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Rian Kalden | Locked |
| Judge Patricia Rombach | Locked |
| Judge Ingeborg Simonsson | Locked |
| Judge Max Tilmann | Locked |
| Judge Marc van der Burg | Locked |
At the UPC: SharkNinja Operating LLC (8 cases)·Groupe SEB France (5 cases)
This dispute contains 4 other proceedings
UPC CFI 3375/2026·UPC CFI 3376/2026·UPC CFI 1599/2026·UPC CFI 1594/2025
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2026
- 2026-10-05AppealPublic
Summary: After its final order of 21 August 2026 set the value of SharkNinja's PI appeal (EP 3 689 198, against the Paris LD order of 10 April 2026) at EUR 3.75m, the Court of Appeal granted SharkNinja's R. 371.4 RoP application and ordered reimbursement of EUR 37,900 in overpaid value-based court fees.
Show the legal issues (1)
- Reimbursement of overpaid value-based court fees on appeal where the value set is lower (R. 371.4 RoP)
- 2026-08-21AppealPublic
Summary: On SharkNinja's appeal from the Paris Local Division's dismissal of its provisional-measures application concerning EP 3 689 198 (a multi-mode cooking system), the Court of Appeal found on the balance of probabilities that the patent is more likely valid than invalid over the cited prior art (Tredy, Liantek) and more likely than not infringed by SEB's 'Cookeo Infinity' cooking devices. It set aside the first-instance dismissal and itself ordered SEB to cease and desist in France and Germany from dealing in the accused products, subject to a per-product/per-day penalty payment, and awarded SharkNinja its costs at both instances relating to the patent at issue.
Show the legal issues (7)
- claim construction of the 'air frying mode' limitation (feature 1.2) and the 'second lid configured to couple' limitation (feature 1.4)
- novelty of the patent at issue over prior-art utility model Tredy (CN 202312830 U) and over Liantek (WO 2015/062197)
- infringement of claim 1 (and dependent claim 8) by the 'Cookeo Infinity' cooking system
- necessity and urgency of provisional measures on appeal from a first-instance refusal (Art. 62(2) UPCA, R. 211 RoP)
- balance of interests between the parties
- admissibility of late-filed exhibits and new arguments on appeal
- apportionment of costs where two patents were the subject of first-instance proceedings but only one is on appeal (Art. 69(2) UPCA)
- 2026-06-10Appeal RoP220.1Public
Summary: The Court of Appeal issued an order on a confidentiality request, ruling on the treatment of confidential information in the appeal proceedings. The Court partially granted and partially refused the appellant's application for provisional measures protecting confidential information, imposing specific conditions on access to confidential submissions and requiring Bavaria (the appellant) to take appropriate measures regarding the confidential information. The order also addressed procedural steps including an opportunity for SEB (the respondents) to comment on the confidentiality arguments.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Confidentiality of information in Court of Appeal proceedings
- Conditions for access to confidential submissions by opposing party representatives
- Provisional protection of confidential information pending appeal
- Treatment of allegedly leaked confidential information in pleadings
- 2026-05-22Application RoP262APublic
Summary: The Court of Appeal ruled on a confidentiality request under R. 262A RoP filed by SharkNinja. The Court granted a retroactive time extension to SEB to file its signed observations by 6 May 2026, recognised the disputed market data as confidential, and restricted access to that information to four named SEB employees plus SEB's UPC representatives, with SEB given until 29 May 2026 to comment on the confidential information.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Electronic signature requirement under R. 4.1 RoP — whether CMS login/submission process satisfies the signature requirement
- Retroactive extension of time period under R. 9.3(a) RoP
- Confidentiality of third-party panel market data under R. 262A RoP and Art. 58 UPCA
- Scope of confidentiality club — number of persons from respondent permitted access to confidential information
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Publication of order | 2026-10-05 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-10-05 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-10-05 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-09-17 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-09-17 | Not public |
| Other document Appellant | 2026-09-17 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-08-24 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-08-24 | Not public |
| Case closed | 2026-08-21 | Not public |
| Publication of order | 2026-08-21 | Not public |
The Paris Local Division construed the 'air frying mode' limitation (feature 1.2) too broadly; properly read, Tredy (CN 202312830 U) neither expressly nor implicitly discloses a fan, motor or circulating air, so it does not anticipate feature 1.2 and the patent is more likely than not novel over Tredy.
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54(1) EPCThe 'Pressure lid' (second lid) of the accused Cookeo Infinity products is 'configured to couple' to the food container within the meaning of feature 1.4 because it is shaped to press-fit onto the food container during the conductive cooking operation, even though in use it is also secured via the first (hinged) lid.
ClaimantLegal basis: claim construction / infringement of feature 1.4SharkNinja and SEB are direct competitors in the multi-cooker market (the Ninja Foodi products compete with the Cookeo Infinity range), so distribution of the attacked embodiments threatens SharkNinja's market share and creates a risk of price erosion, making provisional measures necessary.
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA / R. 211.3 RoP (necessity)SharkNinja did not delay unreasonably before applying for provisional measures, filing less than one month after first becoming aware of the infringing products and acting immediately to investigate them.
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP / R. 209.2(b) RoP (urgency)
Expert opinions (Exhibits SEB-7.6 and SEB-7.7) show that the skilled person would recognise a fan and a motor in Tredy's Figure 2.
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54(1) EPC (novelty)Other prior-art drawings (Exhibits SEB-14.1 to 14.9) show that the elements highlighted in Tredy's Figure 2 are the typical representation of an air-fryer motor and shaft, reflecting common general knowledge.
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54(1) EPC (novelty) / common general knowledgeThe pressure generated during high-pressure cooking (equivalent to roughly 400 kg of force) shows the second lid is not actually held to the food container by any coupling means, so feature 1.4 is not realized.
RespondentLegal basis: infringement of feature 1.4Even if infringement and validity are found in SharkNinja's favour on the balance of probabilities, an injunction should nevertheless not follow.
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA (discretion to grant provisional measures)SEB's brand image and credibility with distributors, and the difficulty of relaunching the product if the injunction were later set aside, outweigh SharkNinja's interest in an injunction.
RespondentLegal basis: balance of interests, Art. 62(2) UPCAThe Cookeo Infinity products are commercialized under the well-known Cookeo and Moulinex trademarks, which raises the market rather than harming SharkNinja, and SharkNinja did not demonstrate an actual drop in sales.
RespondentLegal basis: necessity / direct competition