Dyson Technology v Dreame International (Hongkong) (CFI, 7 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 7 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_2255/2025), made after an inter partes hearing, the Hamburg Local Division grants Dyson provisional measures against four Dreame group companies under EP 3 119 235, concerning a hand-held hair care attachment, targeting the ‘Dreame Dazzle’ styler, for the UPC states and, as regards two defendants, for the Spanish part of the patent. It declines jurisdiction, however, over the UK distributor Cellcom and rejects the application for the United Kingdom against Dreame’s EU representative. The Division departs from two of its earlier positions: it now treats the UPC as a court of a Member State for the purposes of Art. 4 of Regulation 1215/2012, and it abandons the construction of feature 1.6 adopted in UPC_CFI_387/2025.

Facts and procedure

The patent, claiming UK priority of 20 March 2014, was granted on 30 April 2025 and has effect in the UPC states as well as in Spain and the United Kingdom. The respondents are the Hong Kong manufacturer, its Swedish and Dutch subsidiaries (the latter being importer and EU representative), the German distributor Teqphone and the UK distributor Cellcom (paragraphs 1 to 12). Dyson made test purchases in Germany, Spain, Great Britain and Northern Ireland (paragraph 11). The application was filed on 29 December 2025, the respondents objected on 23 January 2026 and the hearing took place on 17 February 2026.

The applicable law

Provisional measures are governed by Art. 62 and 25(a) UPCA and Rules 209 and 211 RoP. International jurisdiction rests on Art. 4, 7(2), 8(1) and 71b of Regulation 1215/2012, the extent of protection is assessed under Art. 69 EPC and sufficiency under Art. 83 EPC.

Question

May the Division order provisional measures covering, beyond the UPC states, Spain and the United Kingdom, and against which respondents, and is the patent more likely than not valid and infringed?

Decision

The Division accepts jurisdiction over UPC territory as regards the first four respondents, treating the UPC as a court of a Member State whose territory covers all Contracting Member States (paragraphs 42 to 47). For Spain, the Dutch subsidiary, an alleged importer, serves as anchor under Art. 8(1) as regards the manufacturer (paragraphs 48 to 55). For the United Kingdom, jurisdiction exists only over the Dutch subsidiary: the obligations under the General Product Safety Regulation (EU) 2023/988 do not make it foreseeable that Cellcom could be sued before the UPC (paragraphs 56 to 63), on the merits, acting as representative for Northern Ireland does not, under English law, suffice to establish liability (paragraphs 123 to 127).

Departing from its earlier view, the Division holds that the overlap in feature 1.6 is not limited to the ends of the plates (paragraphs 81 to 100) and finds literal infringement of claims 1 and 11 (paragraphs 107 to 116), leaving equivalence open (paragraph 117). Imminent infringement by the German distributor is established (paragraph 120). Urgency is made out (paragraph 129), sufficiency, novelty and inventive step over O1, O2 and O3 are accepted (paragraphs 131 to 175). The balance of interests favours Dyson, a direct competitor losing market share to cheaper products (paragraphs 176 to 178). The injunction covers in principle all Contracting Member States where the patent has effect (Art. 34 UPCA), and Spain for two defendants, and the defendants’ request for an interim award of costs is refused (paragraphs 179 to 181). No security is ordered (paragraphs 183 and 184).

The order prohibits defendants 1 and 3 from making, offering, placing on the market, using, importing and storing the product in the UPC states and Spain, and defendants 2 and 4 in the UPC states, under claims 1 and 11, with penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per infringement, it dismisses the rest, declares the order immediately enforceable. Costs are borne 30% by Dyson and 70% by the defendants subject to the order, and the value in dispute is set at EUR 1,000,000 (paragraphs 185 to 187).

Key points for practice

• An EU-based importer may serve as anchor to extend provisional measures to the part of a patent in an EU Member State outside the UPC.
• Representation duties under EU product safety law ground neither jurisdiction over a UK distributor nor liability in the United Kingdom.
• A local division may revisit the construction adopted in an earlier case between the same parties where the arguments lead it to a different reading.
• Practical point: to cover the United Kingdom, the applicant must sue a company that itself commits the acts complained of there and establish its liability under English law.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25(a), 31, 33(1)(a) and (b), 34, 47(2), 62, 63, 69 and 82(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 19.7, 209.2, 211, 213, 352.1, 354.3 and 354.4

European Patent Convention

Art. 69, Art. 83

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4, 7(2), 8(1), 35 and 71b

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 9

Case law cited

Dyson v Dreame, Court of Appeal, 6 March 2026, Dyson v Dreame, Hamburg Local Division, 14 August 2025, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva, Court of Appeal, 13 August 2025, Alexion v Samsung Bioepis, Court of Appeal, 20 December 2024, Keeex v Adobe, Court of Appeal, 13 March 2026, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, 10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Occlutech v Lepu, Hamburg Local Division, 21 October 2025, FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025, Edwards v Meril, Nordic-Baltic Regional Division, 21 July 2025, Abbott v MicroTech, The Hague Local Division, 6 February 2026, CJEU, 22 January 2015, Hejduk, C-441/13

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.