Short Summary
Procedural order of the UPC Local Division Paris in proceedings concerning EP 3 689 198, addressing confidentiality and translation exemption requests in connection with Seb's application for costs following the dismissal of SharkNinja's provisional measures application. The judge-rapporteur classified certain redacted information as confidential, restricted access to a limited confidentiality circle, and granted Seb an exemption from translating specified French-language exhibits and case law i
Detailed Summary
1
Local Division Paris
UPC_CFI_ 1599/2026
of the Court of First Instance
of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 22/05/2026
(R. 262 A RoP Confidentiality
and exemption of translation)
RESPONDANT
APPLICANTS
Patents no.
Proprietor
EP3689198
SharkNinja Operating LLC
SharkNinja Operating LLC
89A Street, Suite 100,
MA 02494, Needham, United States
Represented by Paul Bettridge and Agathe
Michel-de Cazotte
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Groupe SEB France,
112, Chemin du Moulin Carron
69130, Écully, France
S.A.S. SEB
Rue de la Patenee
21260, Selongey, France
SEB International Service (SIS)
10 Rue des Chars,
70310, Faucogney et La Mer, France
Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH,
WMF Platz 1,
73312 Geislingen an der Steige, Germany
Represented by Thomas Bouvet, Colin
Devinant and Célia Benmesbah
Jones Day
2
DECIDING JUDGES:
Judge-rapporteur
Carine Gillet
LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English
ORDER
On 10 April 2026, Paris LD dismissed SharkNinja’s application for provisional measures based on
EP 3 689 198 (hereafter referred to as 'EP 198'), ordering the applicant to cover Seb's legal costs
and other expenses incurred during the proceedings.
On 10 May 2026, Seb filed an application for costs pursuant to R151 RoP, as well as other
measures, as follows :
Having regard to Article 69.1 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and Rules 150 et seq. as
well as Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court:
Regarding The Costs
-Order SharkNinja Operating LLC, as the unsuccessful party in the proceedings
UPC_CFI_1594/2025, to pay Groupe SEB France, SEB S.A., SEB INTERNATIONAL SERVICE (SIS) and
Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH, the sum of
as legal costs and other
expenses,
-Order that any amounts that would be paid by SharkNinja in compliance with the EUR 120.000
interim award of costs of 10 April 2026, will be offset against the above total amount of legal costs
and other expenses ordered by the Court, it being specified that such offset will not apply to any
(i) penalties that could be ordered against SharkNinja,
or
(ii) enforcement expenses incurred by SEB, in both cases in the event of non- and/or late-
compliance with the interim award of costs,
Regarding The Confidentiality
-Order that the information in red in the present application and the redacted passages in SEB
Exhibits marked Confidential is confidential information between the parties;
-Order that the information in red in the present application and the redacted passages in SEB
Exhibits marked Confidential and the unredacted version of SEB Exhibits marked Confidential be
excluded (i) from publications; (ii) from any documents made available; and (iii) from any
information made available in response to an application;
-Order that the information in red in the present application and the redacted passages in SEB
Exhibits marked Confidential be made available only to SharkNinja’s representatives and for use
only for the purpose of the present proceedings,
Regarding The Exemption From Translations
-Order that exhibits and the caselaw of the UPC adduced in French shall not have to be translated
into English.
In a communication dated 12 May 2026 and sent via CMS, the judge rapporteur informed the
parties that the unredacted application and exhibits classified as 'Highly Confidential' had been set
to 'Mutual', thereby allowing SharkNinja’s representatives to access them.
3
At the same time, both parties were requested to provide written comments by 27 May 2026,
including their views on the possibility of a stay, bearing in mind the pending appeal proceedings.
On 15 May 2026, SharkNinja asks the judge-rapporteur to :
-access to the unredacted version of the cost application of 10 May 2026 and SEB Exhibits marked
Confidential (Exhibits 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 a
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in SharkNinja Operating LLC vs Groupe SEB France et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
KIPA ABvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns an unnamed applicant's request under Rule 262.1(b) for access to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation as claimant and Meril Lifesciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB as defendants, relating to European Patent EP2628464. The applicant claimed to be a board member and investor in a medical device company in the cardiac implant technology field, seeking access as a competitor concerned about the patent's validity. Edwards Lifesciences opposed the request, arguing it lacked a concrete, verifiable, and legitimate reason, and referenced prior decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi-Aventis and Ocado v. AutoStore. The order addresses the principles of public access under Article 45 UPCA and the requirements for granting access under Rule 262.1(b).
Valeo ElectrificationvsRespondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs. The Court allowed both withdrawals and declared all proceedings closed.
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, INTERLUX, UAB, SORMEDICA, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, VAB-LOGISTIK, UABvsEDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance regarding a request for a stay of infringement proceedings pending opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office. The appellants, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, and SMIS International OÜ, sought a stay under Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP. The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility of new legal arguments on appeal and clarified the framework for granting stays pending EPO opposition decisions, holding that the Court has discretionary power to stay proceedings even where the expected EPO decision is not final and may be appealed.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o.vsValeo Electrification
1 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 November 2024 concerning an application for suspensive effect (R.223.4 RoP) APPLICANTS AND DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI 1. Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Untergruppenbach, Germany 2. Magna PT s.r.o.
Evac OyvsRespondent
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Evac Oy regarding European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1 against six defendants, including a Chinese company, German companies, and individual persons. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 6 (S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH, Katharina Kiran Singh Kang, and Shaminder Singh Kang) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure. The proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 (Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, and Yong Cao) were ordered to continue, and no cost decision was required as the parties had agreed on costs.
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.