SharkNinja Operating v Groupe SEB France (CoA, 2026-05-22)

Holding

On SharkNinja's Rule 262A RoP application, the Court of Appeal recognised specified information and an exhibit (third-party market panel data) as confidential and restricted access on the SEB side to four named employees (a product director, a controlling director, a head of legal and an in-house European patent attorney) plus SEB's UPC representatives and their assistants, under a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per breach. It further held that a procedural document must itself bear an electronic signature, CMS login credentials being insufficient, but that Rule 9.3(a) RoP expressly allows the retroactive extension of a time period, and on that basis it extended the expired deadline and treated SEB's unsigned filing issue as cured, SEB's error being excusable in the absence of prior Court of Appeal guidance.

Why it matters

The order settles two practical points that arise in almost every UPC file. First, on formalities: authentication through the CMS platform does not replace an electronic signature on the document itself, which affects every representative filing under time pressure, yet the Court simultaneously confirmed that an extension can be granted after the deadline has expired, giving a safety valve for excusable formal errors. Second, on confidentiality: purchased third-party data can qualify as a trade secret where it is not readily accessible, has commercial value and the provider restricts access and use, so the fact that information is commercially available for payment does not defeat Rule 262A protection. The composition of the confidentiality club, four named business and legal persons plus representatives, provides a concrete benchmark for negotiating club size at the Court of Appeal level.

Practical point

Check that every uploaded procedural document carries an electronic signature; if a deadline has been missed for an excusable formal reason, a reasoned Rule 9.3(a) request for retroactive extension remains available.

Official headnote

In the interest of legal certainty, to guarantee the authenticity of a procedural document and to exclude the risk that it is not in fact the work of the person authorized for that purpose, the procedural document itself must bear an electronic signature.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.