The Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Court of Appeal has made its inaugural referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), a procedural milestone that could reshape European patent litigation. Arising from a dispute between Dyson and Dreame over hair curling technology, the referral seeks to clarify the "long-arm" jurisdiction of the UPC regarding "anchor defendants" and non-UPC member states. Thomas Prock, Partner and UPC Representative at Marks & Clerk, provided expert analysis to World IP Review and The Patent Lawyer Magazine on why this case is a "serious issue" for international businesses.
The referral focuses on whether the UPC can exercise jurisdiction over non-EU entities for alleged infringements in non-UPC states by using a local authorised representative as a jurisdictional "hook". Thomas explains that while a German domicile "opens the door" for jurisdiction, the CJEU must now decide if this connection is sufficient to bind a Hong Kong parent company to a pan-European injunction. He suggests that non-European entities may respond by strategically choosing representatives in non-UPC states to mitigate risk. While the referral introduces a period of legal uncertainty, Thomas emphasises that the quest for non-contradictory judgments across the EU is precisely “why the UPC exists in the first place.”
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]