- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in European Union
- in European Union
- in European Union
- in European Union
- in European Union
- with readers working within the Healthcare industries
- within Transport and Privacy topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Novelty may be destroyed by implicit disclosure where the skilled person would inevitably infer a feature from the prior art (Art. 54, Art. 138(1)(a) EPC).
The lack of novelty need not stem solely from what is explicitly, immediately and unambiguously disclosed in a prior art document. It may also arise from what is necessarily implied, i.e., where a skilled person would arrive, inevitably and without any reasonable doubt, at the claimed result by applying the prior art’s teaching.
Provisional measures require the patent to be more likely valid than not (Art. 62(4) UPCA; R. 211.2 RoP).
The ordering of provisional measures can only be considered if the legal validity of the patent-in-suit is sufficiently secured. A sufficient degree of certainty is lacking if the court considers it on the balance of probabilites to be more likely than not that the patent is not valid. (Following LD Düsseldorf, UPC_CFI_452/2023 and UPC_CoA_335/2023.)
Courts should not import limitations from the description into claims where the patent does not impose them.
The Court rejected reading “direct coupling only” into the term “to couple” and refused to equate “to cover” with “to seal,” since the patent provides examples of both direct and indirect coupling and the word “seal” appears only in specific embodiments, not in the claims.
Asserting non-granted claim versions is not automatically excluded in provisional proceedings but depends on the circumstances.
The Court clarified that a request described as a “combination” was not a formal patent amendment but simply an alternative reliance on a dependent claim. However, it was rendered moot since both underlying claims were found more likely invalid.
Interim cost reimbursement is generally capped at 50% of the ceiling of recoverable costs (Art. 69 UPCA; R. 211.1(d), R. 150, R. 152.2 RoP).
Applying Meril v. Edwards (CoA, 25 November 2025), the Court capped the interim award at 50% of the maximum recoverable costs.
2. Division
LD Paris
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_1594/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Application for provisional measures
5. Parties
Applicant: SharkNinja Operating LLC
Defendants: Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 689 198
EP 3 689 201 (withdrawn during proceedings)
7. Jurisdictions
France, Germany
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 54 EPC, Art. 69 EPC, Art. 138(1)(a) EPC, Art. 31 UPCA, Art. 32.1(c) UPCA, Art. 33.1(b) UPCA, Art. 62 UPCA, Art. 69 UPCA, Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA, R. 206 RoP, R. 211 RoP, R. 150 RoP, R. 152.2 RoP, R. 220.1(c) RoP, R. 224.1(b) RoP, R. 263.3 RoPRule 5 RoP, Art. 24(1) (c) UPCA.
To view the full article please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
