SharkNinja Operating v Groupe SEB France (CFI, 10 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 10 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_1594/2025), made after an inter partes exchange, the Paris Local Division dismisses SharkNinja’s application for provisional measures against four SEB group companies concerning the Cookeo Infinity multicookers, under EP 3 689 198 as in force in France and Germany. It finds it more likely than not that the asserted claims lack novelty over a Chinese prior art document (CN 830, ‘Tredy’), without examining infringement. The decision is also of interest on costs: after the withdrawal of the request based on a second patent, an interim award of EUR 120,000 is made against SharkNinja.

Facts and procedure

SharkNinja sought injunctions for France and Germany based on claims 1, 2 and 4 to 8 of EP 3 689 198, with penalty payments and an interim costs award of EUR 600,000 (paragraph 12). It also relied on EP 3 689 201 before withdrawing its request on that patent on 17 February 2026 (paragraphs 8, 11 and 21). SEB had not filed a protective letter (paragraph 7). International jurisdiction and the Division’s competence were not in dispute (paragraph 20), nor was the absence of undue delay (paragraph 22). The value in dispute was set at EUR 7.5 million without objection (paragraphs 100 and 102).

The applicable law

Provisional measures are governed by Art. 62 UPCA and Rules 206 to 211 RoP, the court must be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the patent is valid and infringed. Claim scope is assessed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol, and novelty under Art. 54 EPC.

Question

Is the validity of EP 3 689 198 sufficiently certain to justify provisional injunctions, in view of prior art describing a cooking device with a grill mode?

Decision

Doubt as to validity is enough to defeat the application (paragraphs 18 and 19). The Division gives ‘coupling’ and ‘covering’ a broad reading (paragraphs 41 to 50), then holds that CN 830 discloses, expressly or implicitly, the features of claim 1: its grill mode amounts to an air-fryer function, with a fan implicitly disclosed (paragraphs 64 to 70), and a bayonet coupling is implicitly disclosed (paragraphs 73 to 76). Claims 1, 2 and 4 to 8 are therefore more likely than not to lack novelty, claim 4 also being assessed against WO 2015/062197 (paragraphs 71 to 90). The admissibility of combining claims 1 and 8 is immaterial (paragraphs 91 to 94) and infringement is not examined (paragraph 95).

The order records the withdrawal concerning EP 3 689 201, dismisses the application under EP 3 689 198 and orders SharkNinja to bear the costs of both limbs. For EP 3 689 201, the Division starts from the EUR 600,000 ceiling for the whole case, caps the interim award at 50%, allocates half to that patent and then applies a reduction, giving EUR 120,000 payable within two months (Rule 211.1(d), paragraphs 102 to 104), costs relating to EP 3 689 198 are left to separate proceedings (paragraph 105).

Key points for practice

• In provisional proceedings, an implicit disclosure in prior art may suffice to make lack of novelty more likely than not and defeat the application.
• A broad claim construction, helpful to the proprietor on infringement, widens the prior art that can be relied on to the same extent.
• Withdrawing part of the application exposes the applicant to an interim costs award calculated on the ceiling for the whole case.
• Practical point: before seeking provisional measures, the proprietor should test the patent’s validity against the relevant prior art, including its implicit disclosures.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 31, 32(1)(c), 33(1)(b), 62, 69 and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 152.2, 206, 211, 220.1 and 224.1

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 69 and Protocol on its interpretation, Art. 138(1)(a)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4(1), 8(1) and 71b(1)

Case law cited

Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 11 December 2023, 10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025, Onward v Niche, Court of Appeal, 27 March 2026, Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 January 2026 (UPC_CFI_723/2025)

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.