Short Summary
This order concerns a stay of cost proceedings in a dispute between SharkNinja Operating LLC and several SEB entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Following the dismissal of SharkNinja's provisional measures application based on EP 3 689 198 and SharkNinja's subsequent appeal, SEB filed an application for costs. Both parties agreed that the cost proceedings should be stayed until the Court of Appeal delivers its judgment, and the judge-rapporteur granted the stay.
Detailed Summary
1
Local Division Paris
UPC_CFI_ 1599/2026
order of the Court of First Instance
of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 16/ 06/2026
(stay on Costs Application )
RESPONDANT
APPLICANTS
Patents no.
Proprietor
EP3689198
SharkNinja Operating LLC
DECIDING JUDGES:
Judge-rapporteur
Carine Gillet
LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English
SharkNinja Operating LLC
89A Street, Suite 100,
MA 02494, Needham, United States
Represented by Paul Bettridge and Agathe
Michel-de Cazotte
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
1-Groupe SEB France,
112, Chemin du Moulin Carron
69130, Écully, France
2-S.A.S. SEB
Rue de la Patenee
21260, Selongey, France
3-SEB International Service (SIS)
10 Rue des Chars,
70310, Faucogney et La Mer, France
4-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
ORDER
By decision on 10 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_1594/2025), The Paris Local Division 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.
SHARKNINJA filed an appeal on 27 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_061/2026).
On 10 May 2026, SEB filed an Application for costs pursuant to R.151 RoP, as well as other
measures (exemption of translations).
Among other measures, the judge-rapporteur, by order issued on 21 May 2026, designates the
members of a confidentiality circle, to access to confidential information and asks the parties to
submit their comments, by 05 June 2026, on a possible stay, in light of the pending appeal against
the decision rejecting the interim injunction.
On 05 June 2026, the SEB companies ask the judge-rapporteur to:
-Stay the cost proceedings (UPC_CFI_1599/2026) until a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case
UPC_CoA_61/2026 has been issued ;
-Declare that such stay is without prejudice to the payment of the provisional account of 120.000
Euros, due by SHARKNINJA to the SEB companies by 10 June 2026.
The SEB Companies agree that a stay could be in the interest of a proper administration of justice
as it will allow to determine simultaneously the cost applications for the first instance and appeal
proceedings.
On 05 June 2026, SHARKNINJA requests that the cost proceedings (UPC_CFI_1599/2026) be stayed
until a final decision of the Court of Appeal has been issued, and filed separately its written
comments on the costs application.
In support of its claims, SHARKNINJA argues that:
-An appeal has been filed against the first instance decision,
-A stay is possible, in the context of an application for costs, in the case of a decision on the merits
(LD Brussels UPC_CFI_131_2025, 02 May 2025, OrthoApnea v Anonymous)
-It would be efficient to await a final decision, before determining the reimbursement costs of the
parties, should the Local Division’s decision be overturned . The appeal hearing is scheduled for
23 July 2026 and a decision is expected by the end of August/early September 2026. There is no
risk of insolvency on the part of either party
-SHARKNINJA was ordered to pay an interim award of costs, of EUROS 120.000 by 10 June 2026,
after its withdrawal regarding the proceedings based on EP 201.
GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER
Pursuant to R151 RoP , “Where the successful party (hereinafter “the applicant”) wishes to seek a
cost decision, it shall within one month of service of the decision, lodge an Application for a cost
, which shall contain (…)
(c) a statement as to wether the decision on the merits is the subject of an appeal, if known at the
date of the Application”.
3
According to R.295 Rules of Procedure (RoP), “the Court may stay proceedings (…)
(d) at the joint reques
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, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio UnicovsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing a request by Defendants 3, 5 to 8 (Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, and Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico) to classify certain information as confidential. The court found that while the formal requirements of R. 262A.3 RoP were not met, the request under R. 262.2 RoP was admissible. The court classified the green-shaded passages in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, along with Exhibits Aff3 and Aff4, as confidential trade secrets relating to revenue, profit, and sales figures of Defendants 7 and 8.
Maxell, Ltd.vsSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 129 Samsung-Ro, Maetan-3dong, Yeong-tong-
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in consolidated proceedings (CFI_196/2025 and CFI_665/2025) concerning European patent EP 2 403 266. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 30 April 2026, addressing case management matters including the value of proceedings, exhibit submissions, confidentiality, limitation of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and scheduling of the oral hearing for 23 July 2026.
Agathon AGvsIntercom s.r.l.,KNARR Vertriebs GmbH
This order was issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division following an online interim conference held on 27 January 2026 in consolidated proceedings UPC CFI no. 727/2024 and no. 493/2025. The order addresses procedural matters including the exploration of settlement, clarification of the Claimant's conditional auxiliary requests filed under R. 30.1 RoP, the admissibility of late-filed technical drawings (Annexes 27/28–33/34), and the parties' agreement on the use of a specific equivalence criterion from a prior UPC decision. The Court deemed the late-filed annexes admissible while reserving judgment on their relevance, and confirmed that the auxiliary requests would only be assessed if the counterclaim for revocation is upheld.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KGvsALPINA COFFEE SYSTEMS GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 610 762, in which CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG sues ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Thom as rapporteur, sets out directions for the further conduct of the case, including requirements for uniform patent interpretation, the presentation of validity attacks (particularly on inventive step), the proper formatting of auxiliary requests, and a timetable for revised submissions and responses. The court found the defendant's inventive step attacks insufficient and advised focusing on the strongest attacks, while also setting deadlines running from May 15, 2026 through June 19, 2026.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbHvsAmgen, Inc.
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addresses key legal principles relating to claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step and obviousness. The judgment establishes headnotes on how the skilled person interprets patent claims using the description and drawings, the standard for claiming the 'same invention' for priority purposes, and the framework for evaluating obviousness and inventive contribution.
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.