- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in United States
- within Transport topic(s)
1 Key takeaways
Claim construction must balance function and structure: interpreting structural claim features solely by their function is insufficient; the physical and spatial configuration taught by the patent must equally be considered (Art. 69 EPC, Protocol on Interpretation).
- In the specific case the Court of Appeal held that an "overlap" in the patent claim must be geometrically determined from a viewpoint generally perpendicular to the outer surface of the first end of the wall, as taught by the description and drawings — not solely functionally by reference to the fluid flow function the overlap achieves.
- The Court rejected the respondents' argument that the overlap must be assessed from a radial viewpoint relative to the tubular attachment axis, finding no support for this interpretation in the claims, description, or drawings of the patent.
Injunctions need not be limited to past infringing acts: once infringement is established, a broad injunction covering all forms of patent use is justified (Art. 62(1), Art. 25(a) UPCA).
The respondents sought to limit the injunction to only those specific infringing acts already committed. The Court rejected this, holding that proven infringement is sufficient to establish a risk of further infringement through other acts of use, including acts not previously committed (citing Abbott v Sibio, UPC_CoA_382/2024).
Prosecution history before the EPO or foreign patent offices has limited weight in claim construction and cannot override an interpretation grounded in the patent's claims, description, and drawings.
Statements made by the patent proprietor during examination of a corresponding US patent, and observations by the EPO Examining Division, were considered but found insufficient to overturn the Court of Appeal's independent interpretation based on the patent itself.
Amended infringement claims in appeal are admissible under R. 263 RoP where the amendment could not have been raised earlier and does not unreasonably hinder the opposing party's defence.
The applicant extended its application to newly launched products during the appeal. The Court admitted the amendment because the products were launched after the appeal was filed, and the legal issues were nearly identical to those already in dispute, causing no unreasonable prejudice to the respondents.
Partial stays for CJEU referrals can coexist with continued proceedings on non-stayed parts, especially in urgent provisional measures cases (Art. 38(2) UPC Statute, R. 266.5 RoP).
The Court stayed proceedings concerning the action against one respondent relating to Spain and the action against another respondent pending a CJEU referral, while continuing to decide the remaining parts of the case given the urgency inherent in provisional measures.
2 Division
Court of Appeal
3 UPC number
UPC_CoA_789/2025; UPC_CoA_813/2025
4 Type of proceedings
Proceedings for provisional measures (appeal)
5 Parties
Applicant: Dyson Technology Limited
Respondents: Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB, Eurep GmbH (proceedings concerning Eurep stayed pending CJEU referral)
6 Patent(s)
EP 3 119 235
7 Jurisdictions
UPC
8 Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 69 EPC, Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC, Art. 62(1) UPCA, Art. 25(a) UPCA, Art. 38(2) UPCS, Art. 4 Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 71b(1) Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 71b(2) Regulation 1215/2012, R. 213.1 RoP, R. 220.1(c) RoP, R. 228 RoP, R. 263 RoP, R. 266.5 RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
