Dyson Technology v Dreame International (Hongkong) (CFI, 14 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 14 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_387/2025, ACT_20368/2025), issued after an inter partes hearing, the Hamburg Local Division (Presiding Judge Klepsch, Judge Schilling as judge rapporteur, and Judge Johansson) partly granted Dyson Technology’s application for provisional measures based on EP 3 119 235 (a Coanda-effect hair styling attachment). It enjoined Dreame’s « Curling Attachments » across the UPC territory and, as regards Dreame International (Hongkong) and Eurep, in Spain, but dismissed the application for the « Staggered Curling Attachments ». The order matters for jurisdiction: the EU authorised representative which a non-EU manufacturer needs to sell electronic products is treated as an intermediary under Art. 63(1) UPCA and as an anchor defendant through which the manufacturer can be reached for a non-UPC state.

Facts and procedure

The patent, granted on 30 April 2025 with unitary effect, protects a hair appliance attachment whose air outlet slot is formed by the overlap of two wall ends (claims 1 and 11). Dyson filed its application on 2 May 2025 against Dreame International (Hongkong), the manufacturer, Teqphone, the German distributor, Eurep, the manufacturer’s EU authorised representative, and Dreame Technology AB. The defendants filed their objection on 10 June 2025 and the hearing took place on 24 July 2025.

The applicable law

The division applied Arts. 62 and 63 UPCA and Rules 206 et seq. RoP. On international jurisdiction it combined Arts. 4(1), 7(2), 8(1), 35, 71a and 71b of Regulation 1215/2012, together with the CJEU’s BSH Hausgeräte judgment for the Spanish part. The authorised representative’s role was drawn from Art. 16(1) of the General Product Safety Regulation 2023/988 and Arts. 3 and 4 of the Market Surveillance Regulation 2019/1020. Claim construction followed Art. 69 EPC.

Question

Can the UPC enjoin the EU authorised representative of a non-EU manufacturer and use it as an anchor defendant to extend the measures to the manufacturer for Spain?

Decision

Yes. Teqphone and Eurep are domiciled in Germany. The manufacturer falls under Art. 7(2) read with Art. 71b(2), and Dreame Technology AB under Art. 8(1) (paragraphs 38 to 44). For Spain, absent any plausibly alleged Spanish act, jurisdiction was declined over Teqphone and Dreame Technology AB (paragraph 48). Eurep performs none of the acts in Art. 25 UPCA, but without an authorised representative the manufacturer cannot sell in the EU: it provides an indispensable service and may be enjoined as an intermediary (paragraphs 50 to 55 and 130 to 132). Domiciled in Germany, it serves as anchor to bring in the manufacturer for Spain, the link between them being established by law rather than by mere group membership (paragraphs 57 to 63). On the merits, the slot must be formed by two wall ends, not by a simple aperture, as the prior art and the grant proceedings confirm (paragraphs 97 to 105). The « Curling Attachments » literally infringe claims 1 and 11 (paragraphs 124 to 128), unlike the « Staggered Curling Attachments », whose apertures are not formed by wall ends (paragraphs 121 to 123). Validity is more likely than not, urgency is established and the balance of interests favours Dyson, a direct competitor facing products sold at about half the price (paragraphs 133 to 141). A penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per infringement is provided for, with no security (paragraphs 144 and 145), each party bears its own costs, court fees are split equally, and the value in dispute is set at EUR 1 million (paragraphs 146 to 148).

Key points for practice

• An EU authorised representative appointed under product safety legislation may be enjoined as an intermediary, even if it only performs that regulatory role (paragraph 55).
• The division itself acknowledges the reach of its approach: by appointing a representative domiciled in a UPC state, a non-EU manufacturer exposes itself to measures covering non-UPC national parts (paragraph 63).
• A slot « formed by an overlap » is read in the light of the positions taken before the EPO, which took the aperture-based products outside the measures (paragraph 105).
• Practical point: a patentee targeting a manufacturer outside the EU should identify its regulatory representative in a UPC state and join it from the outset of the application for provisional measures.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 25, 31, 32, 33(1)(a) and (b), 34, 62, 63 and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 206, 209.2, 211, 220.1(c), 352.1 and 354

European Patent Convention

Art. 69

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

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

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 9(1)(a)

Other provisions

Regulation (EU) 2023/988, Art. 16(1), Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, Arts. 3 and 4, Spanish Patent Act 24/2015, Arts. 59 and 71

Case law cited

Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis, Court of Appeal, 20 December 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, 10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Biolitec, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2025, Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025, FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025, ECJ, 13 July 2006, Roche Nederland, C-539/03, CJEU, 25 February 2025, BSH Hausgeräte, C-399/22

Related decisions

• Dyson v Dreame International (Hongkong), 6 March 2026, Court of Appeal order on the cross-appeals concerning the provisional measures based on EP 3 119 235.
• Dyson v Dreame International (Hongkong), 4 June 2026, withdrawal of a penalty payment application after settlement.

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.