Dyson Technology v SharkNinja Europe (CFI, 21 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_443/2023), the Munich Local Division granted Dyson Technology Ltd’s application for provisional measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH based on EP 2 043 492, which concerns a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a cyclonic separator. The respondents are prohibited from offering and supplying in Germany and France vacuum cleaners embodying claim 1, in particular the Shark Detect Pro models concerned, on pain of a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per infringement.

The order matters for practice because of its guidance: about two months to act in two countries is in principle not undue delay, the validity review in summary proceedings is confined to the respondent’s three best attacks, and no interim reimbursement of costs is ordered where proceedings on the merits must follow.

Facts and procedure

The patent, filed on 6 July 2007 claiming UK priority of 18 July 2006, is in force in Germany and France. Dyson had opted out on 4 April 2023 and withdrew the opt-out on 24 November 2023. Dyson learned of offers on SharkNinja’s French website on 27 September 2023, the models were offered on the German website from 7 November 2023 (9 November for model BU1120DE). The application was filed on 27 November 2023 and the oral hearing took place on 22 March 2024, at which Dyson limited its request to the models named as examples. The respondents disputed infringement, validity and urgency, and declined to seek security.

The applicable law

The panel (Judge Zigann presiding, Judges Pichlmaier and Schober, technically qualified Judge Weber) applied Arts 62 and 82 UPCA, Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol, and Rules 209.2(b), 211.2 to 211.4 and 213.1 RoP. Claims are construed according to the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal in UPC_CoA_335/2023, which apply to infringement and validity alike: the wording chosen by the patentee, read in light of the description and drawings, determines both the patentee’s protection and legal certainty for third parties.

Question

Are the requirements for provisional measures met, having regard to urgency and any delay by the applicant, the construction of features 1.3, 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 of claim 1, the likely validity of the patent and the balance of interests?

Decision

On urgency, an application filed within two months of discovery in France and some 20 days after sales began in Germany is not late: the applicant must be able to check whether the patent’s teaching is used, assess its prospects and prepare its case in two countries. On infringement, the « cyclonic separating apparatus » of feature 1.3 is not limited to tangential inflow or a two-stage design: any vortex separating particles by centrifugal force is enough, which the videos shown at the hearing established. The transverse handle (1.5.3) and the apparatus located « between » the suction conduit and the handle (1.5.4), which does not require alignment on a single axis, are also literally reproduced.

On validity, the summary review is confined to the three best attacks: lack of inventive step over DE 1 863 708, possibly combined with common general knowledge and KR 2000-0067144A, and lack of novelty or inventive step over JP 54-027573. The respondents bear the burden of proving the facts underlying invalidity, none of these attacks makes invalidity more likely than validity. In balancing the interests, the Division relied on direct competition and a selling price 50 to 60% below Dyson’s. No security is imposed of the Court’s own motion, each party provisionally bears its own costs, and Dyson must bring the main action within the Rule 213.1 RoP period, failing which the order will be revoked on request.

Key points for practice

• Acting within two months of learning of the facts, for alleged infringement in two countries, is in principle not regarded by the Munich Local Division as undue delay.
• A respondent in summary proceedings must rank its invalidity arguments: only the three best attacks are examined.
• A feature the patent does not define is given a functional reading where the invention concerns another aspect (here ease of handling, not the detail of particle separation).
• Practical point: a respondent that declines to ask for security should not expect the Court to order it of its own motion, an applicant should not expect interim reimbursement of costs without a particular reason, such as a risk of insolvency.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 62(2), 62(4), 73(2)(a) and 82

Statute of the Court

Art. 37(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 118.8, 158.2, 206.2(c), 209.2(b), 211.1(d), 211.2, 211.3, 211.4, 213.1, 220.1(c), 224.2(b), 354 and 355.4

European Patent Convention

Arts 54, 56, 69 and the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69

Case law cited

10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), CoA 8/2024 (reference given without further detail), UPC_CFI_2/2023, Munich Local Division, UPC_CFI_452/2023, Düsseldorf Local Division

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.