Executive Summary
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.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The UPC Appeal Board ruled that introducing evidence from another jurisdiction (US) and another patent, even if related by claim wording, is insufficient to overcome procedural hurdles in the appeal phase. The court emphasized that patent interpretation is a legal matter for the court, not determined by arguments made in other proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in SharkNinja Europe Limited vs Dyson Technology Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SEvsIPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Chamber addressed disputes over the scope and timing of submissions in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 2 624 031 B1. The respondent sought to exclude large sections of the claimant's pleadings, arguing they were untimely or irrelevant to the patent validity challenge. Conversely, the claimant requested permission to introduce further arguments regarding claim waivers relevant to the infringement case. The court rejected all procedural motions, maintaining strict adherence to the UPC Rules of Procedure.
NEC CorporationvsTCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for public access to confidential case documents in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC and TCL. Despite the underlying claims being withdrawn by the parties, the Court recognized a general interest in judicial transparency. The court granted the applicant access to redacted versions of key pleadings and exhibits, setting a precedent for balancing openness with confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a cost allocation dispute following a prior judgment where FUJIFILM sued Kodak for infringement and simultaneously faced revocation counterclaims. The court examined extensive claims by Kodak regarding high legal fees, expert witness expenses, and travel costs incurred during the complex proceedings. While some specific travel and accommodation costs were deemed reimbursable after reduction, the Court firmly rejected the claim for representation costs related to the cost procedure itself, setting clear boundaries on what is recoverable in summary cost decisions.
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh
Edwards Lifesciences successfully sued Meril Life Sciences in the UPC Local Division Munich regarding infringement of its patented SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve. The court found infringement and issued a comprehensive order, including the destruction of infringing devices and substantial preliminary damages. This ruling reinforces the strength of patent rights within the Unified Patent Court system, particularly for critical medical technologies like TAVI.
UnspecifiedvsEssetre Holding spa
In this UPC revocation action, the Court addressed arguments regarding novelty and inventive step for a machine used in machining walls. The core legal discussion centered on claim interpretation, specifically how terms like 'working surface' should be understood within the patent's context. Ultimately, the court rejected the attempt to revoke the patent, maintaining it after incorporating amendments proposed by the defendant.
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.