- with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services and Technology industries
- within Transport and Privacy topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Universal jurisdiction doctrine consolidated
The panel — departing from its own earlier position in Dyson/Dreame I (UPC_CFI_387/2025) and following the Court of Appeal’s ruling (UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025) — held that the UPC is a court of a member state within the meaning of Art. 71a BR. Its territory encompasses all Contracting Member States. Consequently, the UPC possesses universal jurisdiction under Art. 4 BR over any defendant domiciled in any UPCA Contracting Member State. This applied to Defendants 2 (Sweden), 3 (Netherlands), and 4 (Germany) without further analysis of the place of infringement.
Limits of anchor defendant mechanism (Art. 8 BR)
Foreseeability is a critical unwritten requirement of Art. 8 (1) BR. The fact that actions are brought against several defendants bsed on different grounds does not preclude the application of Art. 8 (1) BR but it must be foreseeable for the defendants that they could be sued in a Member State. A company acting as EU Representative cannot be serve as an anchor defendant for the UK, because in those countries an EU Representative is not required by law and hence it was not foreseeable for the company that it could be sued for acts in UK in a Member State.
Dynamic claim construction
The panel reconsidered and revised its earlier claim construction from Dyson/Dreame I (UPC_CFI_387/2025). In the prior decision, the panel had held that a “slot formed by an overlap of a first end of the wall and a second end of the wall” required overlapping plate ends. The panel now adopted a broader, functional interpretation. The panel aligned itself with the CoA’s guidance (UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025, mn. 40), confirming that any boundary of the wall delimiting a longitudinally extending slot constitutes an “end of the wall.”
Cost splitting is proportional, not per-party
As pursuant to Art. 1 (2) and (3) of the Guidelines, the ceilings on recoverable costs apply to the costs of representation at each instance of the proceedings, irrespective of the number of parties, it follows that in a split cost decision according to Art. 69(2) UPCA the costs should be split proportionally, not per party.
2. Division
LD Hamburg
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_2255/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Application for provisional measures
5. Parties
Applicant: Dyson Technology Limited
Defendants: Dreame International (Hong Kong) Limited; Dreame Technology AB; Dreame Technology Netherlands B.V.; Teqphone GmbH; Cellcom Ltd.
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 119 235
7. Jurisdictions
Contracting Member States of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court; Spain; United Kingdom
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 62(2), 63 (1) 2nd sentence, 69(2) UPCA, Art. 4 Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU); Art. 8 (1) Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU)
Download (pdf): 2026-04-07_LD_Hamburg_UPC_CFI_2255_2025
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.
[View Source]
