Introduction
On 6 March 2026, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued two orders in appeals UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025 concerning proceedings between Dyson and several companies associated with the Dreame group.
The case marks a procedural milestone for the UPC. For the first time, the UPC Court of Appeal has referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under the preliminary ruling procedure. The referral asks the CJEU to clarify how EU jurisdiction rules apply when the UPC is asked to hear claims involving defendants outside the EU and alleged infringement occurring in EU Member States that have not joined the UPC.
At the same time, the Court of Appeal extended the scope of the preliminary injunction granted at first instance to cover additional Dreame products within the UPC territory.
The Patent and Alleged Infringement
The dispute concerns European Patent EP 3 119 235, owned by Dyson. The patent relates to a curling attachment used with a handheld hair-styling device and forms part of the technology behind Dyson’s Airwrap products.
Dyson alleges that several Dreame hair-styling devices incorporate technical features that fall within the scope of the patent claims. The products identified include models sold under the AirStyle and Pocket brands.
Parties to the Proceedings
The proceedings were initially brought before the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC against several defendants connected to the Dreame group, including:
- Dreame International (Hongkong) Ltd, the parent company and manufacturer based in Hong Kong
- Teqphone GmbH, a German company involved in distribution
- Dreame Technology AB, a subsidiary of Dreame International located in Sweden
- Eurep GmbH, a German company acting as Dreame’s authorised representative in the European Union
The inclusion of Eurep reflects EU product compliance rules requiring certain non-EU manufacturers to appoint a representative within the Union responsible for regulatory documentation and communication with authorities.
First Instance Order
In August 2025, the Hamburg Local Division granted Dyson a preliminary injunction in relation to certain Dreame hair-styling devices.
The court concluded that earlier versions of the accused products infringed Dyson’s patent and prohibited their sale within the UPC territory and in Spain. Notably, Spain is an EU Member State but not a participant in the UPC system.
The Local Division declined to extend the injunction to several newer product versions, including updated Airstyle and Pocket models, finding that Dyson had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of infringement at the interim stage.
Both Dyson and Dreame appealed.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal issued two separate orders.
Extension of the Injunction
The Court reassessed the infringement issues and concluded that the newer Dreame devices also infringed the asserted patent claims. The preliminary injunction was thus broadened to cover additional products within the UPC’s participating Member States.
Referral to the CJEU
The UPC Court of Appeal stayed the appeal against Dreame International insofar as it relates to the territory of Spain, and also stayed the appeal against Eurep GmbH. The Court stayed these aspects of the appeal, determining that several issues raised by the appeal depend on the interpretation of EU law. The UPC Court of Appeal has thus referred four questions to the CJEU.
The referral concerns how the Brussels I Recast Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights apply to the UPC as a common court. A key question at the heart of the referral is whether or not Eurep, in its capacity as authorised EU representative of Dreame International, can be used as a so-called ‘anchor defendant’ to enable injunctions to be issued for non-UPC countries (like Spain) for products that are manufactured by a company based in a non-UPC country. Another question essentially asks whether Eurep can be held liable for patent infringement as an intermediary whose services are used to infringe.
The Questions Referred to the CJEU
The four questions reproduced from the UPC Court of Appeal order are as follows:
Question 1
Must Article 8(1) in conjunction with Article 71b(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that a situation where, in proceedings before a common court within the meaning of Article 71a(2) of Regulation 1215/2012, a first company that is established in a third State is alleged to have committed an infringement of a national part of a European patent which is in force in an EU Member State that is not party to the instrument establishing the common court, and a second company that is established in an EU Member State that is party to the instrument establishing the common court is alleged to be an intermediary whose services are used by the first company to infringe in the EU Member State that is not party to the instrument establishing the common court, is capable of leading to “irreconcilable judgments” resulting from separate proceedings as referred to in Article 8(1) Regulation 1215/2012?
Question 2
Must Article 71b(2), second sentence, of Regulation 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that a common court has jurisdiction in relation to an action for provisional measures against a company established in a third State that is alleged to have infringed a European patent in force in an EU Member State that is not party to the instrument establishing the common court, and in some or all EU Member States that are party to the instrument establishing the common court by offering the same products in all those EU Member States through websites that are identical apart from the language?
Question 3
Is the fact that the company uses the services of a company that is established in an EU Member State that is party to the instrument establishing the common court in order to infringe a relevant circumstance in answering this second question?
Question 4
Does Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48 or any other provision of Union law preclude case-law of a national or common court under which an interlocutory injunction aimed at preventing or prohibiting infringement of a patent by a third party by placing products on the market to which Regulation 2023/988 and 2019/1020 apply may be granted against an authorised representative that performs the tasks laid down in these Regulations on behalf of the third party?
Why the Decision Matters
The answers provided by the CJEU will help clarify how EU jurisdiction rules operate in the context of the UPC.
The case has three particularly important practical implications:
- Cross-border enforcement
The ruling may clarify whether the UPC can hear disputes involving alleged infringement in EU Member States that have not joined the UPC. - Anchor defendants
It may provide guidance on when claims against multiple defendants can be combined before the UPC to extend jurisdiction to non-EU manufacturers. - Role of authorised representatives
The decision could address whether companies acting as authorised representatives under EU product legislation may be subject to patent injunctions when their services facilitate placing products on the EU market. If intermediaries may be held liable for patent infringement, this could represent a paradigm shift in how future relationships between authorised EU representatives and their non-EU based manufacturers are handled, due to an elevated risk profile.
Next Steps
The UPC proceedings will continue in part while the CJEU considers the referred questions. The preliminary injunction granted by the UPC Court of Appeal remains in effect for the relevant products within the UPC territory.
Once the CJEU delivers its ruling, the case will return to the UPC Court of Appeal for further consideration in light of that guidance. CJEU preliminary rulings typically take 1 to 2 years to be handed down. We will provide an update to this news as soon as possible.