in Graham Ashley
4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural issues concerning cost determination following a provisional measures case. The court ruled that deadlines for filing costs claims are tied to substantive decisions, not interim orders. Crucially, it affirmed that the principle allowing successful parties to claim legal costs (EPC Art. 69) applies even when no full infringement or validity proceedings have been initiated, provided the initial action was unsuccessful.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
In a significant decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Dyson's request for an injunction against SharkNinja concerning EP 2 043 492. The court found that the probability of infringement was not overwhelmingly high, particularly regarding the cyclonic separating apparatus feature (1.3). This ruling underscores the high evidentiary threshold required to obtain provisional relief in UPC proceedings.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This UPC Appeal Board decision addressed a motion to admit new evidence in an ongoing infringement case involving SharkNinja and Dyson regarding EP 2 043 492. SharkNinja sought to introduce documents from a US patent litigation, arguing that the opposing party's interpretation of key features was crucial for determining novelty and inventive step. The Appeal Board ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that evidence from other proceedings must meet strict relevance criteria and cannot simply contradict arguments made in the current case.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
This UPC appeal case centered on procedural disputes regarding the scope of arguments and the admissibility of new evidence in a patent infringement/validity matter concerning vacuum cleaner technology. Dyson sought to have certain grounds for invalidity disregarded by the Board of Appeal, while SharkNinja attempted to introduce late-filed US documents (FBD 27 and FBD 28) as supporting evidence. The Board ultimately rejected Dyson's procedural request but dismissed SharkNinja's attempts to introduce new material, emphasizing strict adherence to established appeal procedures.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.