Dyson Technology v Dreame International (Hongkong) (CoA, UPC_CoA_789/2025, APL_35434/2025, 6 March 2026, doc. 2)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 6 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025), the Court of Appeal, presided over by Klaus Grabinski, referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the dispute between Dyson and Dreame International and Eurep concerning unitary patent EP 3 119 235 for a hair care device. It stayed the appeal so far as it concerns Dreame International for Spain and Eurep. The questions concern the UPC’s jurisdiction, in provisional proceedings, over a patent in force in a non-participating Member State, and whether the authorised representative of a manufacturer established outside the Union is an intermediary. The CJEU’s answer will shape the territorial reach of UPC provisional measures and the exposure of regulatory representatives.

Facts and procedure

Dreame International, a Hong Kong company, sells hair dryers through country-specific websites, including for Germany and Spain. Eurep, a German company, appears on the packaging as the authorised representative in the Union under product safety legislation. On 14 August 2025 the Hamburg Local Division granted a provisional injunction covering the UPC territory and, as against Dreame International and Eurep, Spain, finding infringement by the old products but not by the new ones. Both sides appealed. The hearing before the Court of Appeal took place on 22 January 2026. A separate order of the same date deals with the remainder.

The applicable law

The UPC’s international jurisdiction is governed by Arts 71a and 71b of Regulation 1215/2012: the second sentence of Art. 71b(2) allows jurisdiction against a third-State defendant to extend to damage outside the Union, and Art. 8(1) covers multiple defendants where there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments. Art. 62(1) UPCA implements Art. 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48, which allows injunctions against intermediaries.

Question

Can the UPC, in provisional proceedings, rule on infringement of a patent in force in Spain by a third-State company sued together with an intermediary established in the Union, and can an authorised representative under Regulations 2023/988 and 2019/1020 be enjoined as an intermediary?

Decision

The Court of Appeal did not decide these points: it confined the stay to Dreame International for Spain and to Eurep, since the questions do not affect the other defendants and urgency weighs against delay (paragraphs 10 and 11). Jurisdiction over Eurep follows from its German domicile (paragraph 12). The court noted that Solvay v Honeywell does not settle the position of an intermediary, whose liability depends on that of the infringer (paragraphs 13 to 18), and then questioned, in light of Van Uden and recital 33 of the Regulation, the requirement of a real connecting link and the territorial reach of measures based on Art. 71b(2) (paragraphs 19 to 25). As Eurep is not an infringer, it asked whether a service confined to regulatory compliance, with no control over the infringing act, falls within the concept of intermediary developed in Tommy Hilfiger and UPC Telekabel (paragraphs 26 to 32). Four questions were referred to the CJEU.

Key points for practice

• The UPC’s provisional jurisdiction over a patent in force in a non-participating state, as against a third-State defendant, now depends on the CJEU’s answer (paragraphs 19 to 25).
• A manufacturer’s authorised representative in the Union may or may not be targeted as an intermediary under Art. 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48 (paragraphs 26 to 32).
• The stay is confined to the parties affected by the questions, and the appeal proceeds for the rest (paragraphs 10 and 11).
• Practical point: until the CJEU rules, applications for provisional measures covering Spain or a regulatory representative carry jurisdictional and substantive uncertainty.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 21 and 62(1), Statute, Art. 38

Rules of Procedure

Rule 266

Other provisions

Regulation 1215/2012, Arts 4, 8(1), 35, 71a and 71b, and recital 33, Directive 2004/48, Art. 9(1)(a), Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Art. 267, Regulation 2023/988, Art. 16, Regulation 2019/1020, Art. 4, CJEU, Solvay v Honeywell, C-616/10, Van Uden, C-391/95, Tommy Hilfiger, C-494/15, UPC Telekabel Wien, C-314/12

Related decisions

• Dyson v Dreame International, 14 August 2025, provisional measures order of the Hamburg Local Division.
• Dyson v Dreame International, 6 March 2026, separate Court of Appeal order on the remainder of the appeal.

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.