SharkNinja Germany v Dyson (CoA, 3 December 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 3 December 2024 (UPC_CoA_297/2024, APL_32012/2024), the Court of Appeal (second panel, presided over by R. Kalden) set aside the order for provisional measures made by the Munich Local Division on 21 May 2024 in favour of Dyson against SharkNinja and dismissed the application. The court was not persuaded that it was more likely than not that SharkNinja’s handheld vacuum cleaners embodied feature 1.3 of claim 1 (cyclonic separating apparatus). The order shows how closely the Court of Appeal reviews the evidence of infringement in provisional proceedings, video evidence included, and confirms that doubt on infringement alone defeats the measure, without any need to address validity or urgency.

Facts and procedure

Dyson Technology Limited owns EP 2 043 492, relating to a hand-held cleaning appliance, in force in Germany and France among other states. It applied for provisional measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH, which offered the Shark Detect Pro models (IW3611 and IW1611) and the BU1120DE cordless vacuum on their German and French websites. On 21 May 2024 the Munich Local Division granted the application: an injunction against offering and supplying in Germany and France, penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per infringement and immediate enforceability (paragraph 7). It had construed feature 1.3 functionally, without limiting it to a tangential inlet or to two cyclone stages, and rejected the validity attacks (paragraphs 8 and 9). SharkNinja appealed. The hearing of 31 October 2024 was held in English with the parties’ consent, German remaining the language of the proceedings.

The applicable law

The court restated that provisional measures require it to be sufficiently certain, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant is entitled to commence proceedings and that the patent is infringed. Such certainty is lacking if the patent is more likely than not invalid (paragraph 26, Art. 62(4) UPCA, Rule 211.2 RoP and Art. 9(3) of Directive 2004/48). The applicant bears the burden of proving infringement, the defendant that of proving the facts establishing invalidity (paragraph 27). The claim is construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol.

Question

Do the accused vacuum cleaners embody, with sufficient likelihood, functional feature 1.3 of claim 1, which requires a cyclonic separating apparatus?

Decision

On construction, the court accepted that feature 1.3 is functional and does not require two cyclone stages (paragraph 35). It nonetheless requires, in light of both parties’ witness statements, a tangential, helical airflow generating centrifugal forces that separate the particles (paragraph 33).

On infringement, the court was not satisfied that the air inlet in SharkNinja’s devices is tangential: it is more likely that the inclined flap creates an angled flow, with particles striking the wall in a mainly vertical direction (paragraphs 37 and 47). The videos filed (sugar particles, brown particles, a fibre) showed no sufficiently recognisable centrifugal effect (paragraphs 39 to 46). As it was not more likely than not that feature 1.3 was embodied, the order was set aside (paragraph 48), without examining validity, urgency or features 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 (paragraph 49). Dyson bears SharkNinja’s costs of the provisional measures proceedings at both instances (paragraph 50).

Key points for practice

• A functional feature is still read in light of how it works: here the court derived from it a requirement of tangential flow and centrifugal effect that the first-instance judges had not adopted.
• The Court of Appeal reassesses video evidence itself and may reach the opposite conclusion to the Local Division.
• Doubt on a single feature is enough to refuse the measure. The court need not rule on validity or urgency.
• Practical point: an applicant for provisional measures must demonstrate precisely how the accused product works technically, ambiguous video footage will not establish the required likelihood.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 62(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 211.2 and 220.1

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and the Protocol on its interpretation

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 9(3)

Case law cited

SharkNinja Germany v Dyson, Munich Local Division, 21 May 2024 (order under appeal)

Related decisions

• SharkNinja Germany v Dyson, 21 May 2024, order for provisional measures of the Munich Local Division, set aside.

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.