SharkNinja Operating v Groupe SEB France (CoA, 10 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 10 June 2026, given in appeal UPC_CoA_61/2026 brought by SharkNinja against the refusal of provisional measures by the Paris Local Division on 10 April 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal (panel presided over by Judge Kalden, with Judge Rombach as rapporteur) granted the confidentiality request of four SEB group companies. Market data on SharkNinja’s « Ninja Foodi » multicookers contained in SEB’s statement of response of 29 May 2026 and its exhibits were classified as confidential, access being limited to SharkNinja’s UPC representatives and three natural persons. The order shows how the Court of Appeal builds the access group according to each person’s role and the nature of the information.

Question

Can market data on the appellant’s own products, obtained by the respondent from data providers, be protected under Rule 262A, and which of the appellant’s people should have access?

Decision

Rules 262 and 262A protect not only trade secrets within Article 39(2) TRIPS but also other confidential information referred to in Article 58 UPCA (paragraph 13). The passages concerned contain market data obtained from providers that require confidentiality, of the same kind as the data already protected by the order of 22 May 2026 (paragraph 14). The number of persons with access must not exceed what is needed to respect the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, and depends on each person’s role and trustworthiness (paragraph 15). The court admitted three natural persons: a product manager named by SharkNinja, since the data concern its own products and are not highly confidential, and two employees from the legal and IP departments (paragraphs 16 to 18). The request to exclude the information from public access was deferred until a third party applies under Rule 262.1(b), and the request to disregard new arguments will be decided later (paragraphs 19 and 20). The operative part recognises the confidentiality of the information, restricts access, imposes a confidentiality obligation save for information lawfully obtained from another source, provides for a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per culpable breach and gives SharkNinja until 17 June 2026 to respond on the confidential information and on the allegedly late arguments (paragraphs 21 and 22).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: where confidential information concerns the opposing party’s own products, the court admits to the access group the product manager best placed to check it, alongside in-house lawyers.
• A request to keep information from public access is decided only when a third party seeks access to the file (paragraph 19).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 42(2) and 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 222.2, 262.1(b), 262.2, 262A.1 and 262A.6

Other texts

TRIPS Agreement, Art. 39(2)

Case law cited

Strabag v Swarco Futurit, Court of Appeal, 1 August 2025, EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 29 January 2026, Daedalus v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025, SharkNinja v SEB, Court of Appeal, 22 May 2026

Related decisions

• SharkNinja v Groupe SEB France, 10 April 2026, Paris Local Division order under appeal.
• SharkNinja v Groupe SEB France, 21 August 2026, order reversing the refusal of provisional measures.

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.