2024-05-21 - LD Munich - Dyson v. SharkNinja - UPC_CFI_443/2023

1. If the application for provisional measures is filed within two months, it cannot normally be concluded that there has been an unreasonable delay in the case of an alleged infringement in two or more countries and in view of the necessary prior examination as to whether the defendants' embodiments actually make use of the teaching of the patent in suit and whether a legal action is also possible with any prospect of success, as well as in view of the corresponding serious preparation of the proceedings. 2. The principles laid down by the Court of Appeal in UPC_CoA_335/2023 must be applied when interpreting the patent or certain features of the patent claim. This applies equally to the assessment of infringement and to the assessment of the validity of a European Patent. The appropriate protection for the patentee and the associated sufficient legal certainty for third parties is largely determined by the wording chosen by the patentee in the light of the description and the drawings. As a result, the interpretation may lead to a broader or narrower understanding. 3. Due to the summary nature of the examination of legal validity in proceedings for the grant of provisional measures, it is not possible to carry out a full examination of all the attacks on validity as in nullity proceedings. Rather, the number of arguments raised against validity must generally be reduced to the best three from the defendant's point of view. 4. Unless the successful party puts forward important reasons (e.g. the risk of the other party's insolvency), there is no reason to order provisional reimbursement of costs in proceedings for interim measures where - as in this case - the summary proceedings must be followed by main proceedings.

The Munich Local Division granted Dyson a cross-border preliminary injunction against SharkNinja under Art. 62 UPCA and R. 211 RoP for the territories of Germany and France. The Court held that a patentee's two-month gap between learning of alleged infringement in multiple jurisdictions and filing a PI application does not, as a rule, amount to unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP — given the need to investigate whether the product actually reads on the claims and to prepare serious proceedings. On claim construction, the Court applied the Court of Appeal's Nanostring/Plant-e framework (UPC_CoA_335/2023; UPC_CoA_8/2024): the claim wording in light of the description and drawings governs for both infringement and validity, and a functional reading of features is appropriate. The patent was held sufficiently likely valid on summary examination, after limiting the respondent to its best three invalidity attacks. No provisional cost reimbursement was ordered because main proceedings must follow within 31/20 days and no insolvency risk was shown.