SharkNinja Europe v Dyson Technology (CoA, 9 October 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 9 October 2024 (UPC_CoA_297/2024, APL_32012/2024, App_52471/2024), the Court of Appeal (second panel: R. Kalden, presiding, I. Simonsson, rapporteur, P. Rombach, G. Ashley, M. Tilmann) refused to disregard five validity grounds raised by SharkNinja against the Munich Local Division’s order of 21 May 2024 in favour of Dyson (EP 2 043 492), but disregarded two new exhibits filed on appeal. The order sets the level of detail expected of a statement of grounds of appeal.

Question

Are the grounds of appeal sufficiently set out under Rule 226 RoP, and are new exhibits from US proceedings admissible under Rule 222.2 RoP?

Decision

The level of detail required depends, among other things, on that of the contested order (paragraphs 10 to 12). Since the first-instance reasoning on inventive step was very brief, SharkNinja’s criticism is sufficient (paragraphs 13 and 14). A general reference to first-instance pleadings is not enough on its own, but read with the complaint of a breach of the right to be heard, it covers the argument made in the rejoinder (paragraph 15). As the division examined novelty on the merits, the argument of an implicit rejection fails (paragraphs 16 and 17). By contrast, the relevance of exhibits FBD 27 and FBD 28 is not shown, and they were filed more than three months and about one month after they were obtained: the Court disregards them (paragraphs 19 to 21).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an appellant should attack each contested finding specifically, and file any new exhibit from parallel proceedings promptly, with a showing of relevance.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 222.1, 222.2 and 226

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.