SharkNinja Europe v Dyson Technology (CoA, 21 October 2024)

Date	21 October 2024
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_55674/2024 · ORD_55853/2024
Parties	SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited

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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 October 2024 (UPC_CoA_297/2024, APL_32012/2024, App_55674/2024), the Court of Appeal (second panel: R. Kalden, presiding, I. Simonsson, rapporteur, P. Rombach, G. Ashley, M. Tilmann), hearing the appeal of SharkNinja Europe and SharkNinja Germany against an order of the Munich Local Division of 21 May 2024 in favour of Dyson under EP 2 043 492, disregarded new exhibits drawn from US proceedings.

Question

Should the Court of Appeal admit, shortly before the hearing, submissions filed by the respondent in US proceedings concerning another patent, relied on to contradict its construction of the claim?

Decision

On 10 October 2024, three weeks before the hearing of 31 October, SharkNinja filed two exhibits from US proceedings concerning a different patent with identical claim wording. Dyson objected. Rule 222 RoP allows facts and evidence not submitted at first instance to be disregarded, taking into account whether they could reasonably have been submitted earlier, their relevance to the appeal and the position of the other party (paragraph 3). SharkNinja fails to show sufficient relevance: claim construction is a question of law which the Court decides on the basis of the skilled person’s understanding, and inconsistent statements in other proceedings do not deprive Dyson’s submissions before the UPC of weight, all the more so as the US patent is a different one (paragraph 4). The Court therefore disregards the exhibits (paragraph 5).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a party’s statements before a foreign court on the construction of a related patent carry little weight before the UPC, construction being a question of law, late production of such material on appeal is unlikely to be admitted.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rule 222
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

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

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantSharkNinja Germany GmbH6 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantSharkNinja Europe Limited6 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La cour d'appel écarte les pièces issues d'une procédure américaine produites tardivement par SharkNinja, faute de pertinence suffisante pour l'interprétation de la revendication.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 043 492 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 043 492` A 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) · SharkNinja Europe v Dyson Technology (CoA, 20 January 2025) · Dyson Technology v SharkNinja Europe (CFI, 7 January 2025) · SharkNinja Germany v Dyson (CoA, 3 December 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

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.