UPC CoA 61/2026

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

• 2026-10-05
  AppealPublic

  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)
• 2026-08-21
  AppealPublic

  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)
• 2026-06-10
  Appeal 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
• 2026-05-22
  Application 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