Short Summary
Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Chamber Munich, alleging infringement of European Patent 2 043 492 (relating to hand-held vacuum cleaners) by SharkNinja's Shark Detect Pro models. The court granted the injunction, ordering SharkNinja to cease offering and supplying the infringing models in Germany and France, subject to a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation, while requiring Dyson to initiate main proceedings within 31 calendar days or 20 working days.
Detailed Summary
Dyson Technology Limited, the registered proprietor of European Patent 2 043 492 (filed July 6, 2007, claiming priority from GB 0614235 of July 18, 2006), filed an application for provisional measures on November 27, 2023, against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH. The patent, which was in force in Germany and France, protects a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a specific arrangement of components: an elongate handle disposed between the airflow generator and the power source, lying transverse to the longitudinal axis of the suction conduit, with the cyclonic separating apparatus positioned between the suction conduit and the handle. Dyson had initially opted the patent out of the Unified Patent Court on April 4, 2023, but withdrew the opt-out on November 24, 2023.
Dyson alleged that SharkNinja's Shark Detect Pro models (IW1611EU, IW3611EU, IW1611DE, IW3611DE, and BU1120DE) infringed claim 1 of the patent. Dyson first discovered the alleged infringement on September 27, 2023, when SharkNinja offered the products on its French website, and subsequently on November 7 and 9, 2023, on its German website.
The court addressed several key legal issues. First, regarding the alleged delay in filing, the court held that a two-month period between discovering the infringement and filing the application was not unreasonably long, given the need to investigate whether the respondents' embodiments actually used the patent's teaching and to prepare for proceedings across multiple countries. Second, the court applied the principles for patent interpretation established by the Court of Appeal in UPC_CoA_335/2023, holding that adequate protection for the patent proprietor and legal certainty for third parties is determined primarily by the wording chosen by the patent proprietor in light of the description and drawings. Third, the court held that due to the summary nature of validity examination in provisional measures proceedings, the number of validity arguments should generally be reduced to the best three from the respondent's perspective. Fourth, the court declined to order provisional cost reimbursement, as Dyson had not demonstrated compelling reasons such as bearing the insolvency risk of the opposing party, and because main proceedings must follow the interim proceedings.
The court found that the provisional measures were both temporally and substantively necessary, and that the balance of interests favored Dyson. The court ordered SharkNinja to cease offering and supplying the infringing hand-held vacuum cleaners in Germany and France, with a coercive penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation. The order was issued on May 21, 2024, and was immediately effective and enforceable, subject to Dyson initiating main proceedings within 31 calendar days or 20 working days (whichever is longer) from that date.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dyson Technology Limited vs SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Mammoet Holding B.V.vsP.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V., proprietor of European patent EP 4 171 996 B1 concerning a modular trailer system with jack cradles, filed an ex parte application for preserving evidence against P.T.S. Machinery B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. Mammoet alleged that PTS, which had been commissioned in November 2020 to build jack cradles based on confidential drawings, was indirectly infringing the patent by producing and supplying a 'Mechanical Construction' matching the claimed invention. The court granted the application, ordering measures including physical seizure of documentation, access to PTS' premises, appointment of a bailiff and expert, and penalty payments for non-compliance.
Tiroler Rohre GmbHvsSSAB Swedish Steel GmbH & SSAB Europe Oy
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an application for provisional measures filed by Tiroler Rohre GmbH regarding EP 2 839 083 against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy. After the oral hearing where the court indicated concerns about granting the order, the applicant withdrew the application. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the applicant to bear all procedural costs including the costs of the protective letter filed by the defendants.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This order concerns procedural matters following the Local Chamber Munich's August 30, 2024 decision invalidating European Patent No. 1 838 002 and dismissing the infringement action. After Avago filed an appeal and Tesla filed a cost determination application, both parties sought to withdraw their respective applications. The court granted the withdrawal of the cost determination application and ordered each party to bear their own costs in that proceeding.
Dexcom, Inc.vsAbbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
Unified Patent Court decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsDexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently applied to withdraw their respective claims, with each consenting to the other's withdrawal. The Court of First Instance declared the proceedings closed without issuing a cost decision.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.