Below, Prof. Willem Hoyng provides his unfiltered views on the decisions that were published on the website of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) last week. His comments offer a unique insight into the UPC’s case law, as he chairs the Advisory Board of the UPC and participated in drafting the Rules of Procedure of the UPC.
Interested in more of this? Stay tuned and subscribe here for weekly updates.
On the go, multi-tasking or just prefer to listen? “Willem Hoyng’s UPC Unfiltered AI Podcast” – your weekly, AI-generated podcast discussing Willem Hoyng’s commentary on UPC case law of last week, offers a convenient alternative. Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.
14 August 2025
Local Division Hamburg, Dyson v Dreame International
Cross-border jurisdiction
Facts
This was a preliminary injunction case. The defendants were:
- Defendant 1: Dreame HongKong, operator of the relevant country-specific websites, including Spain.
- Defendant 2: Teqphone GmbH, distributor for Defendant 1 in Germany.
- Defendant 3: Eurep GmbH, the European Union (“EU”) representative of Defendant 1 for a non-EU manufacturer.
- Defendant 4: Dreame Sweden, which operates a country-specific website and has a physical store.
The claimant requested a preliminary injunction for all UPC countries and Spain against all defendants.
The Court
- The Court held that it has international jurisdiction against Defendants 2 and 3, who are established in Germany, pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation (“BR”) . This jurisdiction extends to the territories of the contracting member states.
- Under Article 7(2) in conjunction with Article 71(b)(1) BR, the Court has international jurisdiction against a defendant (whether EU or non-EU) that infringes in at least one member state of the UPC. This provides jurisdiction against Defendant 1.
- Jurisdiction against Defendant 4 follows from Article 8(1) BR.
- With respect to Defendants 1 and 3, jurisdiction also exists for Spain, as both allegedly infringe in Spain. This is consistent with the decision of the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) in BSH v Electrolux.
- With respect to Defendant 2, there is not even a plausible allegation of infringement in Spain, so there is no jurisdiction for Spain. The Court referred to the CJEU in Primus v Roche.