in Graham Ashley
4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
SharkNinja Europe Limited, SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by SharkNinja to suspend the cost assessment proceedings or, alternatively, to extend the time limit for filing a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction against SharkNinja and ordering Dyson to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding when the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 of the Rules of Procedure begins to run and the applicability of Rules 150 and 151 when no main proceedings under Rule 213 are initiated.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal order concerning an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 2 043 492, which covers a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a specific handle arrangement. Dyson Technology Limited, as the patent proprietor, sought interim measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal reviewed the first instance decision and, after balancing the probabilities, concluded that it was not more likely than not that the patent was being infringed. The appeal order thus turned on the assessment of the likelihood of patent infringement in the context of interim relief.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an application by SharkNinja to admit new evidence (FBD 29) consisting of two annexes to a brief filed by Dyson's representative in a parallel US proceeding. SharkNinja argued the evidence was relevant to the appeal because it contained Dyson's interpretation of the patent feature regarding an elongate handle, which could undermine Dyson's contradictory denial of disclosure of the 'Power Source' feature in the present proceedings. Dyson opposed the application, arguing the evidence was not decisive and that the submission was culpably delayed.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This order concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding European Patent EP 2 043 492. Dyson Technology Limited, the respondent, requested that several grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja concerning validity attacks be disregarded as they were allegedly not properly specified in the Statement of Appeal. SharkNinja opposed the request, arguing that the grounds were indeed contained in the Statement of Appeal through references to earlier submissions and specific paragraphs. The text of the order is truncated and does not include the final ruling.
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.