SharkNinja Operating v Groupe SEB France (CFI, 21 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_1599/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division, on an application for costs under Rule 151 RoP by Groupe SEB France and three other SEB group companies following the dismissal of SharkNinja Operating’s application for provisional measures based on EP 3 689 198, classified parts of the application and several exhibits as confidential, limited SharkNinja’s access to its representatives, their team and a single employee, and exempted SEB from translating certain French-language exhibits into English.

Question

How many employees of the opposing party should have access to confidential financial information filed in support of a costs application, and may an exemption from translation be granted?

Decision

SharkNinja did not dispute that the non-public financial information, which may involve trade secrets and litigation strategy, is confidential. Applying Art. 9(3) of Directive 2016/943 and Rules 262A.5 and 262A.6 RoP, the judge noted that access must be no broader than necessary while including at least one natural person per party, and applied the Court of Appeal’s criteria (the person’s role, the relevance of the information to that role, and trustworthiness). One employee is sufficient, rather than the three or four sought. The « legal team » means, as the Court of Appeal held on 26 January 2026, support staff engaged by the representative, who is responsible for their compliance. As no third party had applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, the authorisation is provisional. The translation exemption is granted in view of the nature of the exhibits and the parties’ language skills, SharkNinja raising no objection.

Key points for practice

• In costs proceedings, access to confidential financial data may be limited to a single employee of the opposing party.
• Practical point: a request for an employee to be given access should describe that person’s role and its link with the protected information.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 48, 58 and 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 151, 262.1(b), 262.2, 262A.5, 262A.6 and 333

Other provisions

Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of trade secrets, Art. 9(3)

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_621/2024), Sun Patent Trust v Vivo, Court of Appeal, 26 January 2026, Vivo v Sun Patent Trust, Court of Appeal, 26 January 2026, Paris Local Division, 21 January 2026

Related decisions

• SharkNinja Operating v Groupe SEB France, 10 April 2026, order dismissing the application for provisional measures and awarding costs against SharkNinja.
• SharkNinja Operating v Groupe SEB France, 16 June 2026, later decision on the costs application.

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.