UPC_CFI_1599/2026 – Shark Ninja v SEB
- Court
- Local Division Paris
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Stay cost proceedings Facts 1. On 10 April 2026 the Paris Local Division dismissed the application for a preliminary injunction (“PI”) by Shark Ninja. 2. Shark Ninja appealed. 3. SEB filed cost proceedings on 10 May 2026. 4. The JR asked the parties to submit comments on a possible stay. 5. SEB asked for a stay. Shark Ninja agreed. The JR Stays the cost proceedings until the outcome of the appeal. Comment 1. This is a good move of the JR. It does not make sense to deal with costs before the outcome in appeal, especially since an interim amount of € 120.000 was already awarded to SEB. 2. As I said before, I hope that the simplification of costs will be given serious consideration when the Rules are revised (see my previous suggestions).
Full Decision Text
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 decision, 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 request of the parties, (m) in any other case where the proper administration of justice so requires”. In the case at hand, an appeal has been filed against the first instance decision in the preliminary injunction proceedings filed by SHARKNINJA, rejecting its claims and this appeal is still pending. Both parties agree to the stay. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal’s decision may uphold or overturn the judgment at first instance; in the latter case, it may order the other party to bear the costs and, in doing so, call into question a decision on costs had it been made immediately. In addition, there are no concerns regarding the solvency of either party. Thus, a stay of proceedings in relation to costs is in the interests of the proper administration of justice, as it prevents unnecessary payments and allows for the reimbursement of sums paid. For all these reasons, The judge rapporteur, after having heard the parties: 1-Orders a stay of the proceedings for cost brought by SEB, with effect from the date of the present order, until the Court of Appeal delivers its judgment in the proceedings UPC CoA 061/2026, 2-Orders the most diligent party to inform the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal’s decision on the merits, 3- Asks the parties to notify the judge-rapporteur pf any termination of the dispute, by any means other than a decision on the merits issued by the UPC Court of Appeal. 4-States that, during the stay of proceedings, time limits shall no longer run. Issued in Paris, on 16 June 2026 Carine Gillet, Judge-rapporteur This procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur, may be reviewed by the panel in accordance with R.333 RoP. ORDER DETAILS Case number: UPC CFI 1599/2026 Action type: Application for Costs R151 RoP Details : stay Date of issue: 16 June 2026 4
Key Holdings
- Cost proceedings can be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal on the merits.
- The Judicial Registrar (JR) has the authority to stay cost proceedings.
- It is considered practical to defer final cost decisions until the appeal of the main action is resolved.
- Interim cost awards may be granted even if cost proceedings are subsequently stayed.
- The author suggests simplifying cost rules in future revisions of the Rules of Procedure.
Tags
- Costs
- Stay of Proceedings
- Appeal
- Preliminary Injunction
- Procedural