In 'UPC Unfiltered' for week 34 of 2026, published August 24, Willem Hoyng of Hoyng Rokh Monegier reviews the latest decisions of the Unified Patent Court, led by the Court of Appeal's August 21 ruling in SharkNinja v SEB (UPC_CoA_61/2026). SharkNinja had sued SEB in preliminary injunction proceedings before the Paris Local Division over EP 3 689 198, directed to a cooking device integrating air-frying and conductive cooking modes in a single user-friendly appliance. After SharkNinja withdrew a second patent, the Paris division held it more likely than not that the remaining patent was invalid for lack of novelty. The Court of Appeal reversed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal declined to consider arguments and evidence raised late at first instance or for the first time on appeal, and interpreted claim element 1.2 — 'a first lid adapted to cover said opening' — refusing to read in a limitation that the lid be attached to the hollow chamber, particularly since another claim required exactly that. Rejecting the narrower construction adopted in Paris, the court granted SharkNinja the preliminary injunction. Hoyng's commentary underscores the UPC's front-loaded character: parties must do their thinking before proceedings begin, because late arguments and late evidence are routinely refused.

The same week, in Windhager v bellissa HAAS (UPC_CoA_894/2025), the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal as inadmissible because the statement of appeal — and a request for suspensive effect — had been filed without an electronic signature, breaching R. 4.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which guarantees document authenticity; filings without an electronic signature are treated as not having taken place. Hoyng calls the decision a strong warning to representatives: always file with an electronic signature, follow up on registry suggestions, and never file minutes before a deadline.

In Lepu v Occlutech (UPC_CoA_87/2026), the Court of Appeal dismissed Lepu's appeal against a penalty order of EUR 58,000 plus EUR 1,500 per day for non-compliance with a PI order covering an implantable occlusion device, reiterating its Kodak v Fujifilm principles: a party remains responsible for compliance even when using third parties, offering products online can itself violate the order, and penalties are coercive and punitive. Finally, in ALD v Nanoval, the Central Division in Paris granted a 50% refund of court fees after the claimant withdrew its revocation action — Hoyng noting his sympathy for the argument that the Court of Appeal was wrong to apply the new fee structure to all refund requests submitted after January 1, 2026, a fee-policy question now settled in favor of the court's finances.

Original Link: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-34-2026