Versuni Holding v Dreame Technology (CFI, UPC_CFI_2595/2026, 27 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 1 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 27 October 2026 in two joined proceedings (UPC_CFI_2594/2026 and UPC_CFI_2595/2026), The Hague Local Division ruled on Versuni’s applications for provisional measures against Dreame concerning the Mira Mop electric mop. It grants an injunction for the Netherlands, Germany and France based on EP 3 169 210, held more likely than not valid and infringed, and dismisses the application based on EP 4 274 458.

Facts and procedure

Versuni Holding B.V. and Versuni Netherlands B.V. objected to the imminent launch of the Mira Mop by Dreame Technology Netherlands B.V. and Dreame International (HongKong) Limited. EP 3 169 210, granted in 2018 without opposition for a ‘Surface cleaning device’, concerns in particular a pore-size range of a porous material; EP 4 274 458, granted on 11 September 2024, claims a cleaner head whose dirt-liquid inlets are surrounded by a sealing attachment.

Dreame disputed urgency, the standing of both applicants, validity (novelty and inventive step) and infringement. The order was signed by the judges on 21 and 22 October 2026 and is dated 27 October 2026.

Question

Has the applicant shown with a sufficient degree of certainty the validity and infringement of each patent, and the need for measures before the product launch?

Decision

In the EP 3 169 210 case, the Division rejects the novelty attack and the inventive-step combinations, finds infringement more likely than not and accepts urgency. Versuni being the market leader in its category and the Mira Mop targeting the same consumers with a durable product with a long replacement cycle, waiting for a decision on the merits would irreversibly erode its market share; Versuni need not quantify price erosion while the launch price is unknown.

The Division orders Dreame to cease within one week in the Netherlands, Germany and France and to provide information on origin and distribution channels, subject to penalties of EUR 10,000 per day for the injunction and EUR 1,000 per day for the information order, capped at EUR 500,000. Dreame’s request for security is rejected, as recovery of possible damages from a European company is not in doubt. The agreed costs of EUR 225,000 are awarded against Dreame; the value of the case is EUR 5 million.

In the EP 4 274 458 case, the Division is not satisfied that the Mira Mop’s dirt inlets are surrounded by a ‘sealing attachment’ within feature 1.5, whether through the discontinuous peripheral gluing or through the recesses relied on in reply on the basis of documentation for a related product. The application is dismissed and Versuni bears the agreed costs of EUR 225,000.

Key points for practice

• Irreparable harm may follow from direct competition by a durable product in the same segment, without prior quantification.
• Security for enforcement is refused where the defendant shows no recovery difficulty and itself argues it is not on the market.
• A functional feature (sealing attachment) must be shown on the attacked product; documentation for another product from the same manufacturer is not enough.
• The costs agreements are reflected in the operative part of each case.

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement

Articles 47, 62 and 67

Rules of Procedure

Rules 206, 211, 213.1 and 354

EPC

Articles 54 and 56

Case law cited

Sumi Agro v Syngenta (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_523/2024, 3 March 2025), Abbott v Sibio (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_382/2024, 14 February 2025).

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 1 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.