UPC Court of Appeal Refers Key Questions on Cross-Border Injunctions to CJEU

The UPC Dyson v Dreame case involves a preliminary injunction against a non-EU defendant regarding non-UPC territory. On 6 March 2026, the Court of Appeal partially stayed the proceedings and referred four questions on the interpretation of central EU regulations to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The answers to these questions have potential far-reaching consequences for cross-border patent enforcement in Europe.

Background: the Decision of the Hamburg Local Division

The UPC Hamburg Local Division issued a preliminary injunction on 14 August 2025, involving the parties Dyson Technology Ltd. v. DREAME International et al. (Dyson vs Dreame). A key legal issue was whether the UPC can exercise jurisdiction over a Chinese manufacturer for patent infringements occurring both inside and outside UPC territory.

The case involved four defendants within the Dreame Group: the Chinese manufacturer, two German companies (one a distributor, the other serving as the manufacturer’s European Authorized Representative), and a Swedish affiliate. Dyson sought enforcement of its EP-patent across Germany, Sweden, and Spain – the latter being outside UPC territory.

The Hamburg Local Division asserted international jurisdiction according to regulation 1215/2012/EU (Brussels Recast Regulation). It found that it undoubtedly had jurisdiction over the German defendants due to their domicile, pursuant to Article 4 (1) and over the Chinese defendant due to the allegation of infringing acts in a UPC member state, pursuant to Article 7 (2). The claims regarding the Swedish defendant were deemed to be closely connected in the meaning of Article 8 (1), since the Swedish affiliate is part of the same company group as the other defendants, and the attacked embodiments are the same.

Regarding the Spanish non-UPC territory, the Hamburg Local Division found that it had jurisdiction over the Chinese defendant and the German Authorized Representative for the following reasons:

Since it is not possible for the non-EU based Chinese manufacturer to sell electronics in the EU without an Authorized Representative in the Union (see regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products), the legal framework puts the German Authorized Representative in the role of being an indispensable party to the Chinese manufacturer in the distribution of the electronic products. Thus, the Authorized Representative serves as a jurisdictional anchor pursuant to Article 8 (1) Brussels Recast Regulation and is treated as an intermediary subject to injunctions under Article 63(1) UPCA.

Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction covering Spanish non-UPC territory against both the Authorized Representative and the Chinese manufacturer.

In summary, according to the Hamburg Local Division, the UPC had jurisdiction to order an injunction against a non-EU defendant, both for infringements within UPC contracting states and for infringements in national parts of the European Patent outside of UPC contracting states.

Both parties appealed against the preliminary injunction. Dyson sought to extend the injunction to additional Dreame products, which the Hamburg Local Division had found did not fall within the scope of protection of the patent. Dreame, on the other hand, requested that the entire application for provisional measures be rejected.

The Court of Appeal Decision in a Nutshell

On 6 March 2026, the Court of Appeal of the UPC issued its order in the appeals. The court adopted a bifurcated approach, partially staying the proceedings and referring questions to the CJEU, while simultaneously deciding other parts of the case by a separate order.

As regards the non-stayed parts of the case – namely the action against the Chinese manufacturer to the extent that it relates to the UPC Territory, and the action against the German distributor and Swedish affiliate – the Court of Appeal confirmed the jurisdiction asserted by the local division. Additionally, the Court of Appeal extended the Hamburg Local Division’s order and issued provisional measures relating to additional products against these three defendants within the UPC Territory.

However, the Court stayed the appeal proceedings to the extent that they concerned the action against the Chinese manufacturer relating to the territory of Spain, and the action against the Authorized Representative in its entirety. These parts of the case raised questions concerning the interpretation of EU law which the Court of Appeal considered necessary to refer to the CJEU.

Two Possible Routes to Establish Jurisdiction Regarding Non-UPC Territory

With respect to the action against the Chinese manufacturer relating to the non-UPC territory of Spain, the jurisdictional issue is that the manufacturer is not domiciled in UPC territory and the infringement does not occur in UPC territory. The Court of Appeal identified two possible routes to establish jurisdiction, both of which required interpretation of EU law by the CJEU.

The first question to the CJEU was whether the intermediary (the Authorized Representative) can serve as an anchor defendant for jurisdiction over the Chinese manufacturer through Article 8(1) of Brussels Recast Regulation.

The Court noted that CJEU case law has established that Article 8(1) applies where two or more companies are each separately alleged to have committed an infringement of the same national part of a European patent by carrying out reserved actions regarding the same product, as this can give rise to irreconcilable judgments.

However, the Court of Appeal identified uncertainty as to whether the same reasoning applies where one defendant is an alleged infringer and the other is an alleged intermediary whose services are used to commit that infringement. On the one hand, dealing with these actions in separate proceedings may lead to irreconcilable judgments. On the other hand, in the case Solvay v Honeywell, the CJEU has held that irreconcilable judgments require a divergence arising in the same situation of fact and law, and it may be argued that the position of an alleged infringer is not the same as that of an intermediary.

The Court of Appeal also raised two questions regarding an alternative basis for jurisdiction over provisional measures relating to Spain under Article 71b(2), second sentence, of Brussels Recast Regulation (second and third questions to the CJEU).

Article 71b(2), second sentence, allows a common court to grant provisional measures even where courts of a third State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. However, according to case law of the CJEU, this is subject to a “real connecting link” between the measures sought and the territorial jurisdiction of the EU Member States party to the instrument establishing the common court.

The Court of Appeal arguably found such links in this case. At the same time, the court emphasised recital 33 of Brussels Recast Regulation which states that where provisional measures are ordered by a court without jurisdiction over the substance, their effects “should be confined to the territory of that EU Member State”, which may indicate that the provisional measures should be confined to the territory of the Member State of the court seized.

Injunction Against the German Authorized Representative?

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Hamburg Local Division had correctly found jurisdiction concerning the action brought against the Authorized Representative but clarified that this jurisdiction follows from the fact that the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State of the UPCA, namely Germany.

However, the Court of Appeal nevertheless stayed the proceedings against the Authorized Representative, because of an unresolved question about whether it qualifies as an “intermediary”. It was undisputed that the Authorized Representative did not commit any infringing acts itself and thus, according to the Court of Appeal, could not be regarded as an “infringer”. The critical question is whether the defendant merely being an Authorised Representative under Regulation 2023/988 (product safety) and Regulation 2019/1020 (market surveillance) can be subject to an injunction as an intermediary whose services are used by the Chinese manufacturer to infringe.

The Court of Appeal identified that existing CJEU case law on the concept of “intermediary” (such as Tommy Hilfiger v Delta Center and UPC Telekabel Wien v Constantin Film) has only addressed services that enable an infringing act in fact (for example, online platforms or physical market operators). According to the Court of Appeal, the Authorized Representative situation is different: its services merely ensure legal compliance with EU product safety and market surveillance regulations.  It does not, in practice, control the allegedly infringing acts by the Chinese manufacturer.

Since this distinction has not been addressed before, the Court referred question number four to the CJEU and stayed proceedings against the Authorized Representative pending the answer.

Thus, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim against the Authorized Representative, but it could not determine whether it was legally permitted to grant an injunction against it until the CJEU clarifies whether an authorised representative under product safety regulations qualifies as an “intermediary” for IP enforcement purposes.

Potential Consequences for Cross-Border Patent Litigation

The decision and the referral by the Court of Appeal in Dyson v Dreame demonstrate the UPC’s willingness to explore the outer boundaries of its jurisdictional reach, while recognising the need for CJEU guidance on novel questions.

If the CJEU affirms the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction over non-EU defendants through EU anchor defendants, this would in many cases enable patentees to consolidate infringement claims covering both UPC territory and non-UPC EU Member States (like Spain) in a single proceeding.

If the CJEU holds that authorised EU representatives qualify as “intermediaries,” this would materially change the risk profile for these companies. Third-country manufacturers relying on EU representatives could find that those representatives become targets for patent injunctions, even though the representative may have no practical ability to control the allegedly infringing products.

We will continue to monitor these developments as the CJEU proceedings unfold.