Dyson v Dreame: long-arm jurisdiction and the UPC’s first CJEU referral

Two orders issued on 6 March 2026 by the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) in Dyson Technology Limited v Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited and others (UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025), issued on 6 March 2026, include the UPC Court of Appeal’s inaugural referral of questions to the CJEU. The referred questions go to the heart of the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction — its ability to grant relief extending beyond the territory of its contracting member states — and to the meaning of “intermediary” under EU enforcement law. The answers will materially shape the UPC’s utility as a pan-European enforcement forum.

Background

Dyson is proprietor of EP 3 119 235, a unitary patent covering a curling barrel attachment for handheld hair styling devices — the technology underlying the Dyson Airwrap. The defendants are Dreame International, a Hong Kong-based manufacturer; Teqphone GmbH, its German distributor; Dreame Technology AB, its Swedish affiliate; and Eurep GmbH, a German company designated as Dreame’s authorised EU representative under EU product safety regulations. Dyson sought provisional injunctions covering both the UPC territory and Spain. The Hamburg Local Division found infringement in respect of the older product range but declined to extend the injunction to newer products, and limited the Spain-facing relief to Dreame International and Eurep. Both parties appealed. The CoA resolved the infringement issues for the UPC territory by a separate order of the same date, extending the injunction to all Dreame products in issue. The more significant order — addressed here — stays the proceedings relating to Spain and Eurep and refers four questions to the CJEU.

The CJEU referral: long-arm jurisdiction and intermediaries

The second order stays the proceedings relating to Spain and Eurep pending four CJEU questions. The first two concern whether the UPC can exercise jurisdiction over Dreame International’s conduct in Spain. The CoA asks whether Eurep’s German domicile can anchor jurisdiction over the Hong Kong-based Dreame International under Article 8(1) read with Article 71b(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 — the key question being whether an alleged infringer and an alleged intermediary are in sufficiently the same situation of fact and law to give rise to the irreconcilable judgments risk that Article 8(1) requires. A related third question asks whether the UPC can alternatively ground jurisdiction for provisional measures covering Spain directly under Article 71b(2), second sentence, given that the same products are sold across UPC and non-UPC EU Member States through near-identical websites.

The fourth question concerns Eurep. Having been found not to be a direct infringer, the issue is whether its role as authorised EU representative — enabling Dreame International to lawfully market products across the EU — makes it an “intermediary whose services are used” to infringe within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48. Prior CJEU authority on intermediaries (including Tommy Hilfiger v Delta Center) has focused on services that enable infringement in practice. The CoA raises the open question of whether the concept extends to purely regulatory compliance services, where the provider has no practical ability to control the infringing act.

Significance and implications

The CJEU referral builds directly on the Court’s February 2025 ruling in BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux, which opened the door to UPC jurisdiction over EU-domiciled defendants in respect of non-UPC national rights. The present questions define the next frontier: how far that reach extends to non-EU defendants, and what role EU-resident group entities or authorised representatives play in grounding it. The intermediary question has particular commercial significance: if EU-appointed product safety representatives can be injuncted in patent proceedings, the risk profile for such appointments — increasingly common for third-country manufacturers — changes materially.

Procedurally, the CoA’s decision to bifurcate — deciding the UPC-territory issues immediately and staying only the parts that turn on the CJEU referral — is a model of efficient case management that we expect to see applied in other cases. Given that the BSH referral took nearly three years, rights holders and defendants should plan for the stayed elements of this case to remain unresolved until at least 2028–29.

For more information on UPC litigation strategy or European patent enforcement, please contact a member of the Marks & Clerk patents team.