Dyson v. Dreame reloaded—Unified Patent Court grants Dyson another preliminary injunction in patent dispute over hair stylers

Decision of the Hamburg Local Division (Hamburg LD)

Jurisdiction

UPC territory

• The UPC had international jurisdiction over the Swedish, German, and Dutch defendants under Article 4 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation¹ (“Brussels”), based on their domicile in a UPC contracting member state (“UPC state”). The UPC is treated like the national courts of the EU member states², but with a territory encompassing all UPC states. Accordingly, the UPC has international jurisdiction under Article 4 Brussels for every defendant domiciled within any UPC state. 
• International jurisdiction over Dreame HK arose under Article 7(2) Brussels because Dreame HK operated websites within the UPC territory offering and selling the alleged infringing products so the UPC was the place where the harm occurred (i.e. place of infringement). 

Spain

• Dreame NL was also subject to UPC jurisdiction for infringing acts in Spain because of its UPC domicile (Article 4 Brussels). 
• Jurisdiction over Dreame HK was established under Article 8(1) Brussels, using Dreame NL as the “anchor defendant.” The close connection between the parties was established for Spain because they were jointly active in Spanish distribution of the Dazzle products: Dreame NL was the importer of the products into Spain and Dreame HK operated the Spanish website selling them. This was a different situation to that covered by the CJEU referral, which asks whether an intermediary can function as an anchor defendant (see our previous article for more details). In the case at hand, there was no need to rely only on an intermediary as an anchor defendant to establish jurisdiction over Dreame HK for infringement of the Spanish patent: in addition to acting as Dreame HK’s authorized representative, Dreame NL was also alleged to act as a direct infringer, i.e., the importer. 

UK

• The Hamburg LD accepted jurisdiction over Dreame NL for infringing acts in the UK under Article 4 Brussels. The appointment of an authorized representative was a prerequisite for the marketing of the attacked embodiments in Northern Ireland (a part of the UK) under the Northern Ireland Protocol and UK-EU Windsor Framework. 
• The UPC did not, however, have international jurisdiction over Cellcom, the UK’s exclusive distributor. Dreame NL could not act as an anchor defendant in respect of allegedly infringing acts in the UK because it was not closely connected to the UK distributor, as required by Art 8(1) Brussels. The EU regulations on product safety and market surveillance that continue to apply in Northern Ireland³, including the requirement for the appointment of an authorized representative, were only intended to facilitate exports from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. They did not connect UK sales to the EU because they were not designed to ensure a certain level of protection within the UK or Northern Ireland, only to protect against the abstract risk of goods ending up in the EU. This was not a sufficiently foreseeable basis to open UPC jurisdiction based on co-defendants. 

Insofar as the UPC has international jurisdiction, the Hamburg LD had competence according to Art 33(1) (a) and (b) of the UPCA. In an earlier decision, (Honeywell Control Systems v. Sovex Systems et al)⁴, the Mannheim LD had confirmed that there is no hierarchy between Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA (place of actual or threatened infringement) and Art. 33(1)(b) (defendant's domicile) UPCA. Neither provision takes precedence over the other. To establish the internal competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, it suffices to show the existence of infringing activities such as an offer or the possibility of obtaining the allegedly infringing products through a website accessible in the UPC member state. 

Validity of the EP

The Hamburg LD held that the EP’s validity was sufficiently secured. The EP was novel and inventive over the cited prior art, which did not disclose the critical features relevant to the Coanda effect. The EP also adequately taught the skilled person how to achieve the claimed effects. It did not need to specify exact dimensions of the slot or airflow velocity as it was clear that the implementer could choose from different variants how best to achieve the same result. 

Infringement

The court reconsidered and modified its claim construction from the previous proceedings⁵ and adopted a broader, functional approach. A “slot formed by an overlap of a first end of the wall and a second end of the wall” was not limited to overlapping ends of separate plates but could be formed by edged and overlapping apertures in the tubular wall, as both achieved the same technical effects. 

Based on this interpretation, the Dazzle made literal use of the features in Claims 1 and 11 of the EP and there was no need to consider equivalence.

Liability of the defendants

• UPC territories: Defendants 1–3 were all liable for infringement within the UPC territories as they were all involved in offering the infringing products for sale. Teqphone was not yet selling product in Germany, but a staff member in a test purchase attempt had explained that the Dazzle would be available in the store within two to three months. This was sufficient to prove that infringement was imminent—preparations had been fully completed and the stage had been set for infringement to occur (see our previous article on European generics).
• Spain: Dreame HK and Dreame NL were liable for infringement of the Spanish designation of the EP. Dreame HK was the operator of the Spanish website offering the alleged infringing products and Dreame NL was the importer into Spain.
• UK: The only admissible claim against Dreame NL failed. Dreame NL was not the importer of the infringing products into the UK but the EU representative under EU safety regulations, which continue to apply in Northern Ireland only to facilitate dual access to the UK and EU markets after Brexit, not to set a product safety level for the UK. Dreame NL’s role therefore differed in the UK and the EU, and it was not more likely than not that the UK courts would consider such an authorized representative to be an intermediary or joint tortfeasor, and subject to an injunction in the UK⁶.

Preliminary injunction

The court weighed the parties' interests and found in favor of granting the preliminary injunction. The parties are direct competitors in the hair styling market and, because the Dazzle was being offered at a significantly lower price point, it created a risk of market share loss and price erosion. Dyson acted with sufficient urgency, filing approximately one month after becoming aware of the infringing sales. 

It was more likely than not that the EP was infringed or would be infringed imminently (in the case of Teqphone) and the preliminary injunction should cover the UPC contracting states where the EP has effect⁷ and Spain (in the case of Dreame HK and Dreame NL). 

Key takeaways and implications

• The ruling confirms the UPC’s broad international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in any UPC state—they can be sued in the UPC for infringing an EP in UPC states and non-UPC states like Spain. 
• This is, however, another example of the UPC recognizing certain limitations to its long-arm jurisdiction. A UPC-based authorized representative appointed for limited regulatory purposes not directed at the UK market cannot anchor UPC jurisdiction against the UK distributor. This follows the Court of Appeal limiting the UPC’s jurisdiction based on it being the place where the harm occurs (or may occur) to the UPC territory (see previous article for more details on this). The CJEU will also, in due course, confirm whether an EU authorized representative appointed for the more general purpose of enabling EU sales may be sufficiently connected to establish jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant for infringement outside of the UPC. 
• The decision confirms the UPC’s willingness to grant injunctive relief before sales commence if preparations have been fully completed and the stage has been set for infringement to occur. Here evidence from a staff member that products would be available in store within 2–3 months was sufficient to prove that infringement was imminent.

Footnotes

1. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

2. Art 71a Brussels 

4. (UPC_CFI_575/2025)

5. (UPC_CFI_387/2025)

6. It is also under EU law until the CJEU clarifies whether the provision of services, which merely ensure compliance with certain regulations, is sufficient to establish liability as an intermediary (See our previous article). 

7. Article 34 UPCA