How long are the arms of the UPC? UPC Court of Appeal’s first referral to the CJEU
The idiom “the long arm of the law” refers to the ability of law enforcement to catch you, no matter how far you run, or where you hide. In the case of the UPC, that arm appears to be getting longer and more flexible.
In January 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division decided it had jurisdiction for infringement actions over the UK designation of an European patent, where the defendant was domiciled in Germany (Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CFI_355/2023).
Shortly after this, in February 2025, a landmark ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux AB found that, in short, if the defendant has domicile in an EU state, EU courts have jurisdiction on patent infringement cases of foreign patents, and limited jurisdiction on inter partes validity defences.
Following the CJEU ruling:
- The Milan Local Division confirmed it had jurisdiction for infringement issues over the Spanish validation of a European patent, where the defendant was domiciled in Italy (UPC_CFI_792/2024).
- The Mannheim Local Division confirmed it had jurisdiction over infringement of a European patent as granted in Poland, Spain, and the UK, when the defendant was domiciled outside of the EU (UPC_CFI_162/2024).
- The Hague Local Division confirmed it had jurisdiction over all countries outside UPC territory where an European patent is valid (namely, Liechtenstein, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Switzerland, and the UK), for a defendant domiciled in the Netherlands (UPC_CFI_386/2024).
- The Paris Local Division confirmed the UPC was competent to hear an infringement action with respect to the Spanish, Swiss, and UK parts of a European patent, for a defendant domiciled in France (UPC_CFI_702/2024).
Following the CJEU ruling, the UPC has confirmed that its jurisdiction to decide on patent infringement cases extends beyond the borders of its 18 member states, and even beyond the borders of the EU, depending on the facts of the case.
Dyson v Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited & others
It is against this backdrop that the UPC has found itself needing to refer, for the first time, to the CJEU.
The dispute in Dyson v Dreame International & others (UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025) concerns a unitary patent owned by Dyson which covers the technology underpinning the well-known Dyson Airwrap. Of particular importance to the referred questions are the defendants:
- Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, based in Hong Kong, China; and
- Eurep GmbH, based in Germany, which acts as Dreame’s authorised EU representative in order for Dreame to comply with EU product safety regulations.
Dyson sought a preliminary injunction from the UPC, covering the 18 UPC member states, and additionally Spain. The Hamburg Local Division found itself competent in respect of infringement in all UPC territories, and Spain, for all four defendants (including Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, on the basis of the anchor defendant, Eurep GmbH), and granted a preliminary injunction to Dyson for some, but not all, of Dreame’s products; the “Dreame Airstyle” and “Dreame Pocket” (UPC_CFI_387/2025).
An anchor defendant, in law, is a person made defendant to a claim to allow the claims to be brought against a second (or further) defendant over whom a court would otherwise not have jurisdiction.
Both parties appealed.
In its response, the Court of Appeal agreed with the local division that it had jurisdiction to decide on patent infringement cases extending beyond the borders of the UPC member states. Subsequently, the UPC, demonstrating its preference for procedural efficiency, bifurcated the following proceedings.
In the first order of the bifurcated proceedings, directed to infringement in the UPC-member states, the UPC Court of Appeal extended the preliminary injunction to additionally cover all of Dreame’s products at issue (the “Dreame Airstyle Pro” and the “Dreame Pocket Neo”).
In the second order of the bifurcated proceedings, directed to infringement in Spain, the UPC Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings against Dreame international, to the extent that it relates to Spain, and Eurep GmbH, as these proceedings raise questions concerning the interpretation of EU law, which the Court of Appeal referred to the CJEU. In combination with the above context, the referred questions ask the CJEU how long (and flexible) are our arms?
The four questions summarised
For brevity, we have summarised the four referred questions below:
- If a non-EU based defendant is alleged to have committed infringement of a national part of a European patent which is in force in a non-UPC EU member state, and uses the services of a UPC member state defendant as an intermediary in order to commit said infringement, is such a situation capable of leading to “irreconcilable judgments” resulting from separate proceedings?
- Does the UPC have jurisdiction to issue EU-wide provisional measures against a non-EU based defendant, if said defendant is alleged to have infringed a European patent in force in a non-UPC EU member state, if said infringement consists of offering the same products in all EU member states through websites that are identical apart from language?
- Is it relevant to question 2 if the non-EU based defendant company uses the services of a UPC member state company in order to commit said infringement?
- Does EU law preclude the UPC (or any other common or national court) from issuing a preliminary injunction against an EU member state-based defendant, whose services are used by a non-EU based defendant in order to comply with EU product safety regulations, in order to stop infringement by the non-EU based defendant?
Final thoughts
It is worth noting that the referred questions specifically relate to provisional measures, as opposed to all remedies for infringement available to the UPC. However, absent direct statements to the contrary, it is possible that the CJEU’s answers to the above questions may apply equally to all available remedies.
Depending on the answers given by the CJEU to the referred questions, patent owners may find themselves increasingly enamoured by the UPC’s pan-European enforcement, whilst defendants may find themselves increasingly wary of the UPC’s ever growing reach.
Finally, it is worth noting that Eurep GmbH is merely an authorised representative, which offers compliance services, acts as a formal contact point for consumers and authorities in the EU, and performs administrative tasks related to compliance. Eurep is not a retailer, and did not sell, nor offer to sell, Dreame International’s products. If the CJEU confirms such providers can be used as anchors for non-EU domiciled defendants, this could have significant implications on the compliance industry.
Unfortunately, the CJEU does not have the same procedural efficiency as the UPC Court of Appeal. In BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux referral was made to the CJEU in May 2022, and the CJEU judgment was issued in February 2025. Given such a timeline, we do not expect the CJEU to provide answers to the referred questions until early 2029.
However, we would hope that the CJEU sees the need to act quickly, given that the provisional measures are not extended to the newer Dreame products in Spain or with respect Eurep, despite the Court of Appeal considering there are valid reasons for such provisional measures in UPC member states.
Case details at a glance
Jurisdiction: UPC
Decision level: Düsseldorf Local Division
Parties: FUJIFILM Corporation, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH and Kodak Holding GmbH
Citation: UPC_CFI_355/2023
Date: 28 January 2025
Decision (PDF): dycip.com/upc-cfi-355-2023
Jurisdiction: European Union
Decision level: CJEU
Parties: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB
Citation: C-339/22
Date: 25 February 2025
Decision: dycip.com/cjeu-c33922
Jurisdiction: UPC
Decision level: Milan Local Division
Parties: Alpinestars SPA and Dainese spa
Citation: UPC_CFI_792/2024 (final order ORD_ 64124/2024)
Date: 08 April 2025
Decision (PDF): dycip.com/upc-cfi-792-2024
Jurisdiction: UPC
Decision level: Mannheim Local Division
Parties: Hurom Co Ltd and NUC Electronics Co Ltd
Citation: UPC_CFI_162/2024
Date: 02 October 2025
Decision (PDF): dycip.com/upc-cfi-162-2024
Jurisdiction: UPC
Decision level: Hague Local Division
Parties: HL Display AB and Black Sheep Retail Products BV
Citation: UPC_CFI_386/2024
Date: 10 October 2025
Decision (PDF): dycip.com/upc-cfi-386-2024
Jurisdiction: UPC
Decision level: Paris Local Division
Parties: Mul-T-Lock France, Mul-T-Lock-Suisse v IMC Creations
Citation: UPC_CFI_702/2024
Date: 21 March 2025
Decision (PDF): dycip.com/upc-cfi-702-2024
Jurisdiction: UPC
Decision Level: Court of Appeal
Parties: Dyson Technology Limited, Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited and Eurep GmbH
Citation: UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025
Date: 06 March 2025
Decision (PDF): dycip.com/upc-coa-789-2025
Jurisdiction: UPC
Decision level: Hamburg Local Division
Parties: Dyson Technology Limited, Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH and Dreame Technology AB
Citation: UPC_CFI_387/2025
Dates: 14 August 2025 (injunction) and 06 March 2026 (referral for preliminary ruling)
Decision (PDF): dycip.com/upc-cfi-387-2025-injunction and dycip.com/upc-coa-789-2025-referral
Related articles
