Dyson v Dreame & Ors (UPC_CFI_387/2025)
Decision date:
14 August 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- The claimant sought a preliminary injunction to block allegedly infringing sales of the Dreame Airstyle Pro and Dreame Pocket Neo hair stylers, not only in UPC countries, but also in Spain (an EU country that is not participating in the UPC system). The products were manufactured by a Hong Kong-based company, Dreame International, and sold in Germany and Sweden via two local distributers, Teqphone GmbH and Dreame Technology AB.
- In addition, Dreame International had appointed a German entity, Eurep GmbH, as its "authorised representative" in the EU. The court relied on this entity as an anchor to extend its jurisdiction to cover all of Dreame International's alleged infringements, even beyond the UPC territory, to Spain.
- Under Article 4(1) of the recast Brussels Regulation, the UPC had jurisdiction over the local distributors and Eurep because they were incorporated in UPC countries. The court stated that it is established case law of the UPC that "the UPC has international jurisdiction also with respect of the infringement of national parts of an European Patent outside of the UPCA countries and even outside of the European Union", which it noted was in line with the CJEU's decision in BSH v Electrolux.
- The Hamburg LD concluded that jurisdiction based on domicile under Article 4(1) of the recast Brussels Regulation is a "universal jurisdiction", which covers infringing acts in non-UPC states if there is at least a "plausible allegation" of those acts by the defendant in the country in question.
- The court held that the claimant had provided "plausible facts" that Eurep infringed in Spain as an intermediary and that it could be injuncted under the Spanish Patent Act. The court therefore held that Eurep was subject to the court's international (or long arm) jurisdiction.
- Dreame International is based in Hong Kong, so the court could not exercise universal jurisdiction over it based on domicile. This would have meant that UPC's jurisdiction was limited to the company's acts in the UPC territory. The court therefore considered whether Eurep could serve as a UPC-domiciled "anchor defendant" to pull Dreame International into the court's universal jurisdiction.
- The court noted that it is mandatory under EU product safety regulations for a non-EU-based manufacturer to have an "authorised representative" in the EU. Eurep was therefore "an essential party in the distribution in the EU for the electronic products in question" that provided an "indispensable service to the actual infringer", and without which Dreame International could not sell its products in the EU. It observed that Eurep could "stop any distribution by its own will" because "by terminating its role, the distribution of the products are illegal".
- This meant that there was the necessary "close connection" in order for the court to have jurisdiction over Dreame International based on Eurep's place of domicile under the anchor defendant provision in Article 8(1) of the recast Brussels Regulation. As such, the court decided that it had jurisdiction over Dreame International not only in respect of its infringements in the UPC territory, but across the entire EU, including Spain.
- Accordingly, the Hamburg LD found that the claimant's patent was more likely than not infringed and the defendants had not submitted any "substantiated" validity attacks. After weighing the interests of the parties – including the fact that they were competitors and Dreame's products were half the price of the claimant's – the court granted a preliminary injunction against all four defendants for the UPC territory. For Spain, a preliminary injunction was granted against both Dreame International and Eurep.
- For more information and discussion on how the reasoning of this decision is applicable to other sectors such as medical devices and pharmaceuticals, see our Insight here.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.