UPC_CoA_61/2026 – Shark Ninja v SEB

Expert Commentary

Confidentiality c.s. Facts 1. The Paris Local Division dismissed an application for a Preliminary Injunction (“PI”). Shark Ninja appealed. 2. The Court of Appeal noted the presence of certain confidential information in the Statement and Grounds of Appeal and invited SEB to comment. SEB also requested confidentiality of certain exhibits in its Statement of Response, referring to R. 262.A RoP and R. 262.2 RoP. 3. SEB also asked the Court to disregard new arguments. The Court of Appeal 1. The Court of Appeal granted the confidentiality request with a confidentiality club. 2. The Court of Appeal granted Shark Ninja until 17 June 2026 to respond to the allegedly late-filed arguments and evidence, as well as to the confidential passages in SEB’s response. 3. R. 262.2 RoP requests will be decided when a request (by a member of the public) is made. Comment 1. This is not the first time that the Court of Appeal has stated that an R. 262.2 RoP request should be dealt with when a request for public access is made. This also seems to be more in accordance with the text of R. 262.2 RoP, but R. 262.A RoP was later added to the Rules. I do not think that the text of R. 262.2 RoP prevents a party from making such a request together with a R. 262.A. RoP request, which seems practical as it means a party does not make the request again when a public access request is filed, and the Court does not have to make a decision again. 2. In general (noting also that “reasoned request” in R.262.1(b) RoP seems not to serve any purpose), it may make sense to have to close look at this rule when there is an update of the RoP. One possibility could be that a granted R. 262.A RoP request automatically means that information will not be made public unless it is challenged by the members of the public. In that case a further possibility could be that, after the case (in an instance) has ended, access is automatically given (unless one of the parties raises serious objections which outweigh the right of public access, within a week of being informed about the access request).

Full Decision Text

UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_61/2026 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 10 June 2026 concerning an application pursuant to R. 262A RoP APPELLANT (APPLICANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI) SharkNinja Operating LLC, Needham, United States (hereinafter also referred to as "SharkNinja") represented by Paul Bettridge, European Patent Attorney and other patent attorneys and attorneys at law of Carpmaels & Ransford LLP, London, United Kingdom RESPONDENTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI) Groupe SEB France, Écully, France S.A.S. SEB, Selongey, France SEB International Service (SIS), Faucogney-et-la-Mer, France Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH, Geislingen an der Steige, Germany (hereinafter jointly referred to as "SEB") all represented by Thomas Bouvet, attorney at law, and other attorneys at law of Jones Day, Paris, France PATENT AT ISSUE EP 3 689 198 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English DECIDING JUDGES This order was issued by Panel 2: Rian Kalden, legally qualified judge and presiding judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge Max Tilmann, technically qualified judge Marc van der Burg, technically qualified judge IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE "Decision" in UPC_CFI_1594/2025, issued by the Local Division Paris on 10 April 2026. FACTS With the impugned "Decision" (hereinafter: impugned order), the Paris Local Division dismissed SharkNinja's application for provisional measures against SEB. SharkNinja appealed the impugned order. On 22 May 2026, the Court of Appeal recognized specific information in the Statement of Appeal and Grounds of Appeal as confidential information and gave SEB the opportunity to comment on the confidential information no later than 29 May 2026. FACTS On 29 May 2026, SEB commented and submitted both a Rule 262.2 RoP request and a Rule 262A RoP request. By an order of 2 June 2026, the judge-rapporteur granted provisional protection for the alleged confidential information. Access to the information in the unredacted version of SEB's Statement of Response of 29 May 2026 and the redacted passages in SEB's exhibits marked confidential was given to SharkNinja's authorized UPC representatives and their internal assistants, subject to specific limitations. SharkNinja was given the opportunity to comment on the confidentiality request no later than 5 June 2026. PARTIES' REQUESTS SEB requests, inter alia, that the Court of Appeal: I. order that the information redacted or marked in red in the Statement of Response of 29 May 2026 and the redacted passages in SEB's exhibits marked confidential constitute confidential information between the parties; II. order that the information redacted or marked in red in the Statement of Response of 29 May 2026 and the redacted passages in SEB's exhibits marked confidential be excluded: (i) from publications; (ii) from any documents available; and (iii) from any information made available in response to an application; III. order that the information redacted or marked in red in the Statement of Response of 29 May 2026 and the redacted passages in SEB's exhibits marked confidential be made available only to two natural persons from SharkNinja's legal department as well as to SharkNinja's UPC representatives on the CMS and their internal assistants, insofar as access to the confidential information is required for their work in these proceedings; IV. disregard the new arguments. SharkNinja requests: Access to SEB's confidential information in its Response and confidential exhibits should be granted to: a. SharkNinja's UPC representatives and their internal assistants; and b. the following three representatives of SharkNinja: i. [redacted] ii. [redacted] iii. [redacted] c. in the alternative to (b), the following two representatives of SharkNinja: i. [redacted] ii. [redacted] SharkNinja be granted the opportunity to submit additional comments on the content of the Response within at least one week from the date on which the persons referred to above are granted access to the confidential information. SEB's request to disregard SharkNinja's new arguments be dismissed. PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS In essence, SEB submits the following: The paragraphs identified in red or redacted in the Response of 29 May 2026 must be held confidential because they comprise commercial information relating to market data regarding SharkNinja's "Ninja Foodi" models, obtained from data providers requiring users to protect the confidentiality of extracted data. They are of the same nature as the data contained in SharkNinja's Exhibit CRA-29, which was held confidential by the Court of Appeal in its order of 22 May 2026. Adequate measures must therefore be taken to ensure that the confidential information is not used for any purpose other than the present proceedings, is not available to persons other than SharkNinja's representatives and two of its designated natural persons, and is not made available to third parties. In its Statement of Grounds of Appeal, SharkNinja provides new facts, a new exhibit (CRA-29) containing market-share information concerning multicookers, as well as new arguments. In first instance proceedings, SharkNinja alleged that the accused "Cookeo Infinity" product competed with sales of its own multicookers, but it did not consistently identify which of its products allegedly suffered declining sales. In its Application, SharkNinja alleged that the "Cookeo Infinity" product competed with "the Ninja Foodi and the Ninja Speedi multicookers." In its Reply, it ultimately referred only to "the Ninja Foodi Max multicooker OP500EU and the Ninja Foodi Mini 6-in-1 multicooker 4.7L OP100EU." Now, for the first time in its Grounds of Appeal, SharkNinja argues that the relevant products are ultimately the "Ninja Foodi models OP300EU/OP300UK, OP350UKMAX, OP500EU/OP500UK, OP100UK/EU, OP350, OL750UK/OL750EU, OL650UK/EU and OL550UK/EU, i.e. the Ninja Foodi with two lids as well as the Ninja Foodi with the SmartLid," for which sales allegedly declined due to the Cookeo Infinity. There is no plausible explanation why SharkNinja failed to identify these products as competing products during the first-instance proceedings. In essence, SharkNinja submits the following: Access to SEB's confidential information should be granted to three representatives of SharkNinja, two from the legal department and one from the commercial department. This follows from considerations of fairness and equity under Article 42(2) UPCA. Access to the sales data submitted by SharkNinja in its appeal was granted to four representatives of SEB by Court order of 22 May 2026. SharkNinja's arguments concerning the Ninja Foodi models and Exhibit CRA-29 do not constitute new arguments within the meaning of Rule 222.2 RoP. Exhibit CRA-29 was not available to SharkNinja's representatives during the first-instance proceedings and is relevant for assessing the necessity of provisional measures. SharkNinja's Ninja Foodi products include, and have always included, the Ninja Foodi with two lids and the Ninja Foodi with the SmartLid. All of these models were referred to by SharkNinja in its Application when referring generally to "the Ninja Foodi." SEB itself referred to both the Ninja Foodi with the SmartLid and the Ninja Foodi with two lids in its Objection and argued that only the latter was covered by the patent. In response to those arguments, SharkNinja explained that the Ninja Foodi Max OP500EU and the Ninja Foodi Mini 6-in-1 OP100EU, both of which have two lids, were still offered in Germany and France. Parties' Submissions (continued) SharkNinja remains of the view that, for products to compete in the market, the competing products do not need both to implement the asserted patent and do not need to have exactly the same features. Exhibit CRA-29 includes sales data up to the end of Q1 2026 and therefore could not have been available before 1 April 2026. Insofar as necessity is at issue in the appeal proceedings, the data in Exhibit CRA-29 is highly relevant because it provides the most up-to-date information regarding the ongoing damage allegedly caused to SharkNinja by sales of the infringing Cookeo Infinity product. The submitted sales data serves the purpose of further specifying the negative consequences suffered by SharkNinja. Moreover, in preparation for the oral hearing, SharkNinja informed its representatives that Q1 2026 market data showed that sales of the Ninja Foodi had declined after the launch of the allegedly infringing Cookeo Infinity. This argument was raised by SharkNinja's representatives during the oral hearing before the Paris Local Division. GROUNDS SEB's Confidentiality Request Legal Framework Pursuant to Rule 262.1(b) RoP, written pleadings and evidence lodged at the Court and recorded by the Registry shall be available to the public upon reasoned request to the Registry. Pursuant to Rule 262.2 RoP, a party may request that certain information contained in written pleadings or evidence be kept confidential, in particular by making documents available to the public in redacted form (see Rule 262.2, sentence 4, RoP), and must provide specific reasons for such confidentiality. Pursuant to Article 58 UPCA, the Court may, in order to protect trade secrets, personal data, or other confidential information of a party to the proceedings or of a third party, or to prevent an abuse of evidence, order that the collection and use of evidence in proceedings before it be restricted or prohibited, or that access to such evidence be restricted to specific persons. Pursuant to Rule 262A.1 RoP, a party may make an application to the Court for an order that certain information contained in its pleadings, or the collection and use of evidence in proceedings, be restricted or prohibited, or that access to such information or evidence be restricted to specific persons. The classification of information as a trade secret requires that: (a) the information is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question; (b) the information has commercial value because it is secret; and (c) the information has been subject to reasonable steps under the circumstances, by the person lawfully in control of the information, to keep it secret. See Article 39(2) TRIPS Agreement. Rules 262 and 262A RoP refer not only to trade secrets in this sense, but also to other confidential information; see Article 58 UPCA ("for the protection of trade secrets, personal data or other confidential information"), Court of Appeal, 1 August 2025, UPC_CoA_70/2025, Strabag v Swarco Futurit et al., para. 17; and Court of Appeal, 29 January 2026, UPC_CoA_930/2025, EOFlow v Insulet, para. 22. Request I The paragraphs identified in red or redacted in the Response of 29 May 2026 must be held confidential because they comprise commercial information relating to market data regarding SharkNinja's Ninja Foodi models, obtained from data providers requiring users to protect the confidentiality of such extracted data; see Court of Appeal, 22 May 2026, UPC_CoA_61/2026, SharkNinja v SEB. Request III Pursuant to Rule 262A.6 RoP, the number of persons to whom access is restricted shall be no greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the rights of the parties to the legal proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and shall include, at a minimum, one natural person from each party and the respective lawyers or other representatives of those parties to the legal proceedings. Whether a particular person may be granted full access under this provision must be determined on the basis of the relevant circumstances of the case, including: the role of that person in the proceedings before the Court; the relevance of the confidential information to the performance of that role; and the trustworthiness of the person receiving the confidential information. See Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025, UPC_CoA_621/2024, Daedalus v Xiaomi, para. 12; and Court of Appeal, 22 May 2026, UPC_CoA_61/2026, SharkNinja v SEB. The Court of Appeal considers it necessary and sufficient for three natural persons from SharkNinja to have access to the information. As this information relates, inter alia, to market data concerning SharkNinja, SharkNinja has an interest in checking the accuracy of that data. This can best be done by the product manager identified by SharkNinja. As the information is not highly confidential, it is also justified to give this employee access to market data concerning SharkNinja and its competitors. It follows that, additionally, two employees from SharkNinja's legal and IP departments shall be members of the confidentiality club. Request II There is no need to decide on Request II at this stage of the proceedings. The Rule 262.2 RoP request will be decided once a Rule 262.1(b) RoP request is made by a member of the public. Request IV The decision on Request IV will be made at a later stage. Additional Time to Comment on the Confidential Information The Court considers a period of five working days after the confidential information has been made available to be reasonable for reviewing the confidential data and developing a response. Comments on Late-Filed Arguments and Evidence SharkNinja shall be given the opportunity to comment on SEB's arguments in its Statement of Response of 15 May 2026 (paragraphs 14–53) regarding allegedly late-filed arguments and evidence. ORDER The information redacted or marked in red in the Statement of Response of 29 May 2026 and the redacted passages in SEB's exhibits marked confidential are recognized as confidential information. Access to the information redacted or marked in red in the Statement of Response of 29 May 2026 and the redacted passages in SEB's exhibits marked confidential is restricted to: a. [redacted] b. [redacted] c. [redacted] d. SharkNinja's UPC representatives on the CMS and their internal assistants, insofar as access to the confidential information is required for their work in these proceedings. The confidential information shall be treated as confidential by the persons named in section 2. It may not be used or disclosed outside these court proceedings unless it has come to the knowledge of the receiving party outside these proceedings. However, this exception applies only if the information was obtained by the receiving party on a non-confidential basis from a source other than SEB or its affiliated companies, provided that such source is not bound by a confidentiality agreement with SEB or its affiliated companies or by any other confidentiality obligation towards them. SharkNinja is ordered to take appropriate measures to ensure that the confidential information remains confidential and is not used outside these proceedings. In the event of a culpable breach of this order, the Court may impose a penalty payment on SharkNinja of up to EUR 250,000 for each instance of such breach. SharkNinja is given the opportunity to comment on SEB's arguments in its Statement of Response of 15 May 2026 (paragraphs 14–53) regarding allegedly late-filed arguments and evidence no later than 17 June 2026. SharkNinja is given the opportunity to comment on the information redacted or marked in red in the Statement of Response of 29 May 2026 and the redacted passages in SEB's exhibits marked confidential no later than 17 June 2026. Issued on 10 June 2026 Rian Kalden Legally qualified judge and Presiding Judge Patricia Ursula Rombach Legally qualified judge and Judge-Rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson Legally qualified judge Max Wilhelm Tilmann Technically qualified judge Marc Willem Dirk van der Burg Technically qualified judge

Key Holdings

• The Court of Appeal granted a confidentiality request, establishing a confidentiality club.
• Requests for public access under R. 262.2 RoP are to be decided only when a specific request from a member of the public is made.
• Parties may be granted additional time to respond to late-filed arguments and confidential passages in submissions.
• The Court of Appeal suggests a review of R. 262 RoP for clarity and practical application, particularly concerning the interplay between R. 262.A RoP and R. 262.2 RoP.

Tags

• Confidentiality
• Procedure
• Appeals
• Rules of Procedure

Related Cases

• UPC_CoA_523/2024 – Docket Navigator v Sumi Agro and Syngenta
• UPC_CoA_917/2025 – Merz v Viatris
• UPC_CoA_891/2025 – Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks
• UPC-COA-0000894/2025 – Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v bellissa HAAS GmbH
• UPC_CoA_012/2026 – Amazon v Interdigital