SharkNinja Operating v Groupe SEB France (CoA, 21 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 August 2026 (UPC_CoA_61/2026), the Court of Appeal set aside the Paris Local Division’s order of 10 April 2026 refusing SharkNinja Operating provisional measures based on EP 3 689 198, and ordered the Groupe SEB companies, in France and Germany, to cease making, offering, placing on the market, using, importing or storing the « Cookeo Infinity » multicookers embodying claim 1. The order is immediately enforceable, with penalty payments and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000. It confirms that irreparable harm is not a requirement for provisional measures and states, in a headnote, how costs are apportioned where the application succeeds on only one of two patents relied on.

Facts and procedure

SEB launched the « Cookeo Infinity » range on 10 October 2025, SharkNinja learned of it on 15 October 2025 and applied to the Paris Local Division on 14 November 2025 (paragraph 4). It withdrew its request based on EP 3 689 201 at first instance (paragraph 5). The division dismissed the application based on EP 3 689 198 and awarded SEB EUR 120,000 in interim costs for the withdrawn patent. The appeal hearing took place on 23 July 2026.

The applicable law

Under Art. 62 UPCA and Rules 206 and 211 RoP, provisional measures require that the patent be more likely valid than not, that infringement be more likely than not, that the application be urgent and that the balance of interests favour the applicant. Costs follow Art. 69(1) and (2) UPCA.

Question

Is the patent sufficiently likely to be valid and infringed to justify provisional measures against the « Cookeo Infinity » products, and how should costs be shared where one of the two patents was withdrawn?

Decision

SharkNinja’s new exhibits on common general knowledge were disregarded under Rule 222.2 RoP (paragraph 28). Air frying is dry, convective cooking. The first lid need not couple to the housing, a press-fit suffices and no sealing is required (paragraphs 24 to 46). The patent is more likely valid than not: neither Tredy nor Liantek discloses every feature, and SEB did not argue lack of inventive step of claim 1 (paragraphs 54 to 94). Feature 1.4 is more likely than not realised (paragraphs 100 to 106). SharkNinja acted less than a month after learning of the products (paragraph 111). The parties compete directly, irreparable harm is not required and the balance of interests favours SharkNinja (paragraphs 114 to 132). Interim costs are capped at the EUR 300,000 requested (paragraphs 136 to 138), SEB bears the appeal costs and the first-instance costs attributable to EP 3 689 198 (paragraphs 140 to 142). The value of the appeal is set at EUR 3,750,000.

Key points for practice

• An applicant for provisional measures need not show irreparable harm (paragraphs 114 and 128).
• New evidence on appeal about the skilled person’s common general knowledge is disregarded absent justification for its lateness (paragraph 28).
• Where an application succeeds on only one patent, apportioning costs by the value of each patent is generally appropriate (headnote).
• Practical point: applying within a month of learning of the product comfortably satisfies the urgency requirement (paragraph 111).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 62(2), 69(1) and (2) and 76(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 152.2, 206.2(c) and (d), 209.2(b), 211, 211.1(d), 211.3, 211.4, 213, 213.1 and 222.2

European Patent Convention

Art. 54(1)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 9(1)(a)

Other provisions

Scale of ceilings for recoverable costs, Art. 1(3)

Case law cited

Hefei v Grundfos, Court of Appeal, 27 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_622/2025 and UPC_CoA_623/2025), Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024), Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_382/2024), Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 2 June 2026 (UPC_CoA_312/2025), Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024), Fujifilm v Kodak, Court of Appeal, 13 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_473/2025), Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva, Court of Appeal, 13 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_446/2025), Sinocare v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 30 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_899/2025), Guardant v Sophia, Court of Appeal, 2 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_19/2026), Biolitec v Light Guide, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_540/2024), Sumi v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2024), Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_464/2024), NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), CJEU, 18 November 2010, Lidl, C-159/09, CJEU, 23 January 2018, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, C-179/16

Related decisions

• SharkNinja Operating v Groupe SEB France, 10 April 2026, the Paris Local Division order set aside.

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.