2026-04-13 - LD Paris - SharkNinja v. Seb - UPC-CFI-0001594/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-CFI-0001594/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- SharkNinja Operating LLC v. Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Kernaussage: The Paris Local Division refused provisional measures because it considered it more likely than not that every asserted claim of the patent was invalid for lack of novelty.
2026-04-13 - LD Paris - SharkNinja
v.
Seb - UPC-CFI-0001594/2025
notable
The Paris Local Division refused provisional measures because it considered it more likely than not that every asserted claim of the patent was invalid for lack of novelty. Its headnote states the standard: lack of novelty may rest on what a prior-art document explicitly, clearly, immediately and unambiguously discloses, but also on what the skilled person would objectively consider necessarily implied in that explicit content, or on a result within the claim that the skilled person would reach inevitably and without any reasonable doubt by applying the document's teaching. Applying it to a Chinese utility model describing only a lightwave-oven grilling function, the Court held the air-frying mode disclosed: the figure shows an electric motor with its axis pointing downwards, which the skilled person could read in no other way than as carrying a fan, a cooling-fan reading making no technical sense. Bayonet coupling shown in a drawing but never described in words was likewise disclosed. On construction the Court refused to read a direct-versus-indirect distinction into 'couple' that the patent does not draw, and held that 'cover' means placed over the opening without implying an airtight closure. It also confirmed that asserting a non-granted claim version is not automatically excluded in provisional-measures proceedings, and capped the interim costs award at 50% of the ceiling before reducing it further because no oral hearing had been held on the withdrawn patent.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
vorläufig ·Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Preliminarily found invalidArt. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claims 1, 2 and 4 to 8 of EP 3 689 198 were each held more likely than not invalid for lack of novelty over the utility model CN 202312830, including the air-frying mode of feature 1.2, which the Court found implicitly but directly and unambiguously disclosed [70]-[90]. The finding is a provisional-measures assessment on the balance of probabilities, not a revocation.”