SharkNinja Europe v Dyson Technology (CoA, 20 January 2025)
| Date | 20 January 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_283/2025 · ORD_3097/2025 |
| Parties | SharkNinja Europe Limited, SharkNinja Germany GmbH |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 20 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_297/2024), the second panel of the Court of Appeal rejected as inadmissible, because premature, SharkNinja’s applications to stay the cost assessment proceedings or, in the alternative, to extend by three months the time limit under Rule 151 RoP, following the decision of 3 December 2024 that had dismissed Dyson’s application for provisional measures (EP 2 043 492) and ordered Dyson to bear the costs of both instances. Dyson had agreed to the applications. The order settles when the time limit for a cost assessment runs after provisional measures proceedings, a practical point for any party that prevails in such proceedings.
Question
Does the one-month time limit under Rule 151 RoP run from service of the order on provisional measures where main proceedings are pending?
Decision
No. Cost assessment is a separate procedure that follows the decision on the merits and any decision on damages (Rule 150.1 RoP), the one-month period runs from service of the decision in the main proceedings, not of the order on provisional measures (paragraphs 5 and 6). As Dyson’s action on the merits and the counterclaim for revocation were pending before the Munich Local Division, the applications were premature (paragraph 7). The Court added that, where no main action is brought under Rule 213 RoP, Rules 150 and 151 RoP apply by analogy, given the purpose of Art. 69 UPCA (paragraph 8).
Key points for practice
- A party that succeeds in provisional measures proceedings must await the decision on the merits before seeking a cost assessment. An earlier application to stay or extend is inadmissible.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 69(1) to (3)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 9.3(a), 150.1, 151, 213, 295(d) and 296.3
Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.
Going further
Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantSharkNinja Germany GmbH6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantSharkNinja Europe Limited6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les demandes de SharkNinja sont irrecevables : le délai d'un mois pour demander la fixation des frais court à compter de la signification de la décision au fond, non de l'ordonnance sur les mesures provisoires.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 2 043 492mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_256/2025, 13 August 2026, doc. 2) cites this decision
- Hanshow Technology v VusionGroup (CoA, 6 June 2025) cites this decision
- Boehringer Ingelheim International v Zentiva Portugal (CFI, 8 May 2025) cites this decision
- Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, ORD_7954/2025, 22 April 2025) cites this decision
- AsusTek Computer v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, 4 April 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 043 492A hand-held cleaning appliance recorded proprietor: Dyson Technology Ltd | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): Dyson Technology v SharkNinja Europe (CFI, 21 May 2024) · SharkNinja Italy v Dyson Technology (CFI, 27 February 2025) · Dyson Technology v SharkNinja Europe (CFI, 19 February 2025) · Dyson Technology v SharkNinja Europe (CFI, 7 January 2025) · SharkNinja Germany v Dyson (CoA, 3 December 2024) · SharkNinja Europe v Dyson Technology (CoA, 21 October 2024) · SharkNinja Europe v Dyson Technology (CoA, 9 October 2024) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.