SharkNinja fails to secure UPC injunction as Paris LD finds patent likely invalid due to implicit disclosure in prior art

Context: SharkNinja and SEB are competitors in the market for small kitchen appliances. The former is asserting two European patents against the latter: EP3689198 and EP3689201(both titled “cooking device and components thereof”). SharkNinja previously faced Unified Patent Court (UPC) litigation brought by Dyson, where a preliminary injunction (PI; called “provisional measures” in the UPC) was initially granted by the Munich Local Division (LD) (June 6, 2024 ip fray article) and later overturned on appeal (January 7, 2025 ip fray article). On February 17, 2026, SharkNinja withdrew its request for provisional measures regarding EP’201, leaving EP’198 as the sole patent-in-suit.

What’s new: The UPC’s Paris LD rejected the application of SharkNinja for a PI against the products of SEB under the name Cookeo Infinity. The court determined that the asserted EP’198 claims are more likely invalid than valid, based on an existing Chinese utility model (CN 830) that constitutes prior art.

Direct impact: SEB can continue selling its Cookeo Infinity products without interruption, but SharkNinja will probably appeal. 

Wider ramifications:

• The fact that the patent of SharkNinja is probably invalid has a severe impact on its enforcement status, not only in this case but also in any similar conflict involving the same patent.
• The ruling explains the approach of the UPC to novelty. A pre-art document does not have to clearly disclose all features. If a skilled person would objectively and inevitably understand a feature to be present, even if it is not described in words, that feature is considered implicitly disclosed.