SharkNinja v Groupe SEB – Court of Appeal, 22 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_61/2026)
In this procedural order arising from SharkNinja’s appeal against the refusal of provisional measures by the Paris Local Division, the Court of Appeal addressed two practical procedural issues of broader significance: the formal signature requirements for UPC filings and the scope of Rule 9.3(a) RoP concerning extensions of time.
The Court held that a procedural document filed through the CMS must itself bear an electronic signature. Logging into the CMS via secure authentication and completing the upload process is not sufficient. However, the Court also confirmed that Rule 9.3(a) RoP permits genuinely retroactive extensions of time, including where the request for extension itself is made only after expiry of the original deadline.
The order also contains useful guidance on confidentiality clubs under Rule 262A RoP, particularly where commercially sensitive third-party market data is concerned.
The immediate issue arose because SEB filed observations on SharkNinja’s confidentiality request within the deadline, but the filed documents themselves did not contain an electronic signature. SEB argued that the CMS login and submission process, including secure dual authentication and the “sign submission” functionality, should suffice.
The Court rejected that argument.
It held that Rule 4.1 RoP requires the procedural document itself to be signed. The CMS authentication process may verify the identity of the user submitting the document, but that does not establish that the actual content of the procedural document is necessarily attributable to the authorised representative in the legally required sense. In the Court’s words, legal certainty requires the authenticity of the procedural document itself to be guaranteed and the risk excluded that the filing is not in fact the work of the person authorised to submit it.
Note: In my view, it would have been preferable to avoid the wording “add signature” and “sign” during the document compilation and submission process in the CMS. It seemed obvious that this wording would sooner or later lead to confusion.
Despite finding the original filing formally defective, the Court nevertheless admitted SEB’s corrected filing.
The reason lies in the Court’s interpretation of Rule 9.3(a) RoP. The Court expressly confirmed that the rule allows retroactive extensions of time in the full sense: an extension order may be issued after expiry of the deadline, and even a request made after expiry may still be granted.
The Court relied on existing Court of Appeal practice, including Ocado v X, but the practical significance of the present order lies in the specific application of that principle to a filing defect scenario.
Importantly, the Court considered the error excusable because no prior Court of Appeal decision or order had clarified whether CMS submission alone satisfied Rule 4.1 RoP. Referring to the principles of fairness and equity in the Preamble to the Rules of Procedure, the Court granted a one-day retroactive extension, thereby validating the corrected signed filing lodged the following day.
The substantive application concerned a Rule 262A confidentiality request relating to market data from a third-party commercial provider.
SEB argued that the information could not be confidential because it was commercially available for purchase by anyone willing to pay.
The Court disagreed. It held that information does not cease to be confidential merely because access may be purchased. What matters is whether the information is readily accessible. Here, the fact that access required payment indicated that it was not freely available. The commercial value of the information followed from that restricted accessibility, and the provider’s controlled licensing arrangements demonstrated reasonable steps to preserve confidentiality.
The Court therefore recognised the data as confidential information for the purposes of Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262/262A RoP.
SharkNinja had sought a relatively narrow confidentiality club.
The Court took a broader approach. Because the confidential material included market data concerning SEB itself, the Court accepted that SEB should be able to involve not only legal personnel but also relevant commercial employees capable of assessing the information properly.
Access was therefore granted to two marketing/business personnel and two legal department employees, in addition to external UPC representatives and internal assistants.
