In UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025, 6 March 2026, Dyson v Dreame, the Court of Appeal has partially stayed proceedings and referred four questions to the CJEU. This is the first time that a court of the UPC has referred questions to the CJEU. The questions relate to the application of long arm jurisdiction principles in situations involving non-EU parties alleged to have infringed European patents using the services of an EU intermediary (e.g. an authorised representative), and also to whether preliminary injunctions can be issued against authorised representatives.
Case background
These proceedings relate to an action brought by Dyson at the Hamburg LD seeking preliminary (interim) injunctions against four defendants, each being an entity of, or working with, the Dreame Group. For the jurisdictional issues of interest in this case, the first defendant (DREAME INTERNATIONAL) and the third defendant (Eurep GmbH) are relevant, in particular in relation to acts performed in Spain (an EU but non-UPC state).
DREAME INTERNATIONAL is a company based in Hong Kong, and is responsible for manufacturing the allegedly infringing products. It offers to supply the allegedly infringing products throughout Europe (including in Spain) via its website. DREAME INTERNATIONAL will be referred to as the HK manufacturer.
Eurep GmbH is based in Germany, and acted for some time as the "authorised representative" of the HK manufacturer. It is a legal requirement that non-EU manufacturers of products have an authorised representative in the EU.
First instance
In the first instance decision (UPC_CFI_387/2025, 14 August 2025, Dyson v Dreame), the Hamburg LD held that the authorised representative can be subject to a preliminary injunction covering the UPC states and Spain. This is because the authorised representative is an intermediary whose services are being used to infringe a patent within the meaning of Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC, which is incorporated into the UPCA in Article 63(1) and into the Spanish patent act. The UPC has jurisdiction over the authorised representative in respect of Spain because the authorised representative is domiciled in Germany, which is a UPC state.
The Hamburg LD also held that the authorised representative acts as an anchor defendant within the meaning of Article 8(1) Brussels I bis Regulation (Recast) ("BR"), and thus the UPC has jurisdiction over the HK manufacturer in respect of Spain. Article 8(1) BR states the following, and Article 71b(2) BR opens this up to defendants domiciled outside of the EU.
A person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued... where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
The Hamburg LD went on to issue preliminary injunctions against the HK manufacturer and the authorised representative in respect of the UPC states and Spain.
More detail on the case background and the first instance decision can be found in our earlier briefing here.
The appeal and the referral
Both Dyson and Dreame appealed the order of the Hamburg LD (Dyson's appeal relating to issues other than the jurisdictional issues discussed here).
The UPC Court of Appeal stayed the appeal proceedings to the extent that they concern the action against the HK manufacturer in respect of Spain, and the action against the authorised representative in respect of all states, and referred four questions relating to these parts of the proceedings to the CJEU. The appeal was not stayed in respect of other parts of the proceedings.
The four questions referred to the CJEU are reproduced below in italics.
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?
In simpler terms, this question asks: is a situation in which (i) a first company from a non-EU state (e.g. Hong Kong) is alleged to have infringed a European patent in an EU but non-UPC state (e.g. Spain), and (ii) a second company from a UPC state (e.g. Germany) is alleged to be an intermediary whose services are used by the first company for the infringement (e.g. a European authorised representative) capable of leading to "irreconcilable judgments" resulting from separate proceedings, as referred to in Article 8(1) BR?
If the answer to the question is yes, the UPC will have jurisdiction over the HK manufacturer in respect of Spain.
It should be noted that the question refers generally to intermediaries whose services are used, rather than authorised representatives in particular.
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?
For context, Article 71b(2) BR states:
Application may be made to a common court for provisional, including protective, measures even if the courts of a third State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter[.]
Thus, question 2 specifically relates to provisional measures (e.g. preliminary injunctions), rather than final relief. In particular, the question asks whether a common court (e.g. the UPC) has jurisdiction over a company from a non-EU state (e.g. Hong Kong) who is alleged to infringe a patent in both (i) a UPC state, such as Germany, and (ii) an EU but not UPC state, such as Spain, if the company is offering the same product through identical websites in both (i) and (ii). This question does not require that the company uses the services of a UPC-based intermediary.
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?
This question builds on question 2, asking whether the fact that the company uses the services of a UPC-based intermediary (e.g. a European authorised representative) is relevant.
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?
This question asks whether preliminary injunctions can be granted against authorised representatives to prevent or prohibit infringement by other parties.
Comment
The referral of these questions to the CJEU is far from a request for the CJEU to provide clarification of the general principle of long arm jurisdiction. Rather, the questions are focused on the specific situation that has arisen in the present case, involving a non-EU manufacturer working with a European service provider. Thus, the answers provided by the CJEU will not be relevant to every case involving long-arm jurisdiction.
It is also worth mentioning that CJEU preliminary rulings typically take 1-2 years to be handed down, so parties who are engaged in joint operations analogous to the HK manufacturer and the authorised representative in Dyson v Dreame will have to wait some time before there is certainty on the legal situation.
J A Kemp LLP acts for clients in the USA, Europe and globally, advising on UK and European patent practice and representing them before the European Patent Office, UKIPO and Unified Patent Court. We have in-depth expertise in a wide range of technologies, including Biotech and Life Sciences, Pharmaceuticals, Software and IT, Chemistry, Electronics and Engineering and many others. See our website to find out more.
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.
