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

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 6 March 2026 on the cross-appeals of Dyson (UPC_CoA_789/2025) and of Dreame International (Hongkong), Teqphone and Dreame Technology (UPC_CoA_813/2025), the Court of Appeal dismissed Dreame’s appeal against the Hamburg Local Division’s provisional measures order of 14 August 2025 and allowed Dyson’s: the injunction based on EP 3 119 235 (attachment for a hair care appliance) was extended to the ‘New’ and ‘Newest’ Dreame products within UPC territory. The Spanish and Eurep parts were stayed by a separate order referring questions to the CJEU. The order is of practical interest for its construction of a structural feature and for the scope of the injunction, which is not limited to acts already committed.

Facts and procedure

On 2 May 2025 Dyson applied for provisional measures against Dreame and Eurep under claims 1 and 11. By order of 14 August 2025 the Hamburg Local Division enjoined the Dreame companies from infringing in the UPC states (with an extension to Spain for Dreame International), prohibited Eurep from providing services to that end and set a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per infringement, but held that the ‘New’ products did not fall within the claims. Dyson appealed on that point, Dreame for full dismissal of the application. On appeal Dyson extended its application to the ‘Newest’ products. The oral hearing took place on 22 January 2026.

The applicable law

The claim is construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. Provisional measures fall under Art. 62(1) UPCA read with Art. 25(a), amendment of the application on appeal is governed by Rules 263 and 228 RoP. Jurisdiction rests on the defendants’ domicile in Germany and Sweden and, for Dreame International, on Art. 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 for acts within UPC territory (paragraph 17).

Question

How should the notions of overlap and end of the wall in claim 1 be construed, do the successive Dreame products embody it, and may the injunction cover acts not yet committed?

Decision

Extending the application to the ‘Newest’ products was admissible, as Dyson could not have included them earlier with reasonable diligence (paragraphs 18 to 23). Overlap is assessed from a viewpoint generally perpendicular to the outer surface of the first wall end, with no minimum length (paragraphs 30 to 38), any boundary delimiting a longitudinal slot is an ‘end’, the claim not being limited to walls made of plates (paragraphs 39 to 44), the wall may have more than two ends, and Dyson’s statements during grant do not limit the claim (paragraphs 45 to 47).

Infringement by the Old products was confirmed (paragraphs 48 to 52) and found for the New and Newest products, whose slots formed by apertures in plates meet the overlap requirement (paragraphs 53 to 57). Urgency and the balance of interests were confirmed (paragraphs 58 and 59). The injunction is not too broad: Art. 62(1) and 25(a) UPCA do not require it to be limited to acts already committed (paragraph 60). A 31-day time limit under Rule 213.1 RoP was set for the action on the merits, costs were reserved and EUR 4,000 of court fees was reimbursed to Dyson (paragraphs 63 to 65).

Key points for practice

• Construing a structural feature takes account of its function, but also of the physical and spatial configuration taught by the patent (headnote 1).
• Proven infringement is in principle enough to show a risk of further infringing acts, including acts of a kind not yet committed (paragraph 60).
• New variants that appear during the appeal may be added to the application if they could not have been targeted earlier (paragraphs 18 to 23).
• Practical point: a defendant that redesigns its product during provisional proceedings should expect the variant to be examined on appeal and covered by the injunction.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25(a) and 62(1)

Statute of the Court

Art. 38(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 213.1, 220.1(c), 228, 263 and 266.5

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and Protocol on its interpretation

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4, 7(2) and 71b

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Alexion v Amgen, Court of Appeal, 20 December 2024

Related decisions

• Dyson v Dreame International (Hongkong), 14 August 2025, Hamburg Local Division provisional measures order.
• Dyson v Dreame, 6 March 2026, order referring questions to the CJEU and partially staying 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.