March 18, 2026
Introduction
On 6 March 2026, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) issued a landmark order in Dyson Technology Limited v Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited and Eurep GmbH (UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025). The order is remarkable not for what it decided, but for what it asked. For the first time, the UPC Court of Appeal referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) for a preliminary ruling.
The referral addresses three interconnected issues that go to the heart of European patent enforcement: the jurisdictional reach of the UPC over non-EU defendants, the possibility of cross-border provisional measures extending beyond UPC territory, and whether EU-mandated authorised representatives can be treated as “intermediaries” subject to patent injunctions.
Each of these questions carries significant practical weight for patent proprietors operating in the European market. This article examines them in turn.
Background
The dispute arose from Dyson’s European Patent EP 3 119 235, covering a handheld hair care appliance. Dyson alleged that several hair dryer products marketed by Dreame International — a Hong Kong-based company — infringed the patent across UPC Contracting Member States and in Spain.
The second defendant, Eurep GmbH, is a German company that serves as Dreame International’s authorised representative in the EU. Eurep does not itself manufacture or sell the accused products. Its role is to fulfil regulatory obligations under EU product safety and market surveillance legislation, namely Regulation 2023/988 and Regulation 2019/1020. These regulations require that products from non-EU manufacturers have an EU-based economic operator responsible for certain compliance tasks.
The Hamburg Local Division of the UPC granted provisional measures against Dreame International and Eurep, including measures relating to Spain. Both sides appealed.
The Court of Appeal then stayed the proceedings in part and referred four questions to the CJEU. It continued proceedings on other aspects of the case, ultimately extending provisional measures against Dreame International to cover the “New Dreame Products” within UPC territory.
Key Points from the Decision
1. Can the UPC Pull in a Non-EU Company Through the “Anchor Defendant” Rule?
The first referred question concerns Article 8(1) in conjunction with Article 71b(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Regulation 1215/2012). This rule allows a plaintiff to sue multiple defendants before the court of one co-defendant’s domicile, provided the claims are “so closely connected” that hearing them together avoids irreconcilable judgments.
Here, Dyson sought to use Eurep — domiciled in Germany, a UPC Contracting Member State — as an anchor to establish jurisdiction over Dreame International for infringements in Spain, which is not a UPC member. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the argument that claims against an infringer and its intermediary may be sufficiently connected to justify consolidation. However, it also noted the counter-argument: the legal position of an intermediary is dependent on the infringer’s liability, not the other way around. An injunction against the intermediary only arises if the primary infringer is found liable. This asymmetry may mean the anchor defendant mechanism works only in one direction — from infringer to intermediary, not vice versa.
2. Can the UPC Issue Cross-Border Provisional Measures Beyond Its Territory?
The second and third referred questions address whether the UPC can order provisional measures that extend to non-UPC EU Member States — here, Spain. The Court of Appeal drew an analogy between Article 71b(2), second sentence, of Regulation 1215/2012 and Article 35 of the same regulation, which allows national courts to order provisional measures even without jurisdiction on the merits, provided there is a “real connecting link” with their territory.
The Court identified several factors that might establish such a link: the defendant offers the same products in both UPC and non-UPC Member States through virtually identical websites, and uses an intermediary established in a UPC Member State to access the EU market.
However, Recital 33 of Regulation 1215/2012 suggests that provisional measures ordered by a court without jurisdiction on the merits should be limited to that court’s territory. This creates tension with the cross-border reach that Dyson sought.
3. Is an EU Authorised Representative an “Intermediary” Under Patent Law?
The fourth question is perhaps the most novel. Article 62(1) UPCA — implementing Article 9(1)(a) of the Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC — permits injunctions against intermediaries “whose services are used by the alleged infringer.”
The Court of Appeal noted that existing CJEU case law (e.g., Tommy Hilfiger v Delta Center, C-494/15) defines “intermediary” broadly: any operator providing a service capable of being used to infringe, regardless of contractual ties or whether the service is online or physical.
Eurep’s services — acting as the EU-mandated authorised representative — are what enable Dreame International to place its products on the EU market at all. Without Eurep, the products could not legally be sold in Europe. This makes a strong argument for intermediary status.
Yet there is a fundamental distinction. Previous intermediary cases involved entities whose services facilitated infringement in practice — marketplace operators, internet service providers, physical marketplace landlords. Eurep’s role is different: it facilitates legal compliance, not the physical or commercial act of infringement. It has no control over the allegedly infringing products themselves.
Implications for Patent Proprietors
A New Route to Reach Non-EU Infringers?
If the CJEU rules that the anchor defendant mechanism can work through an intermediary, patent proprietors will gain a powerful tool. They could sue non-EU manufacturers before the UPC by joining an EU-based intermediary as co-defendant. This would be particularly valuable in cases involving Chinese or other non-EU manufacturers who sell directly to European consumers via online channels but have no EU establishment beyond their mandated authorised representative.
The practical significance is clear. Under current market surveillance regulations, virtually every non-EU manufacturer selling physical products into the EU must have an authorised representative based in the EU. If that representative can serve as a jurisdictional anchor, the UPC’s reach extends dramatically.
The Prospect of Pan-European Provisional Measures Including Non-UPC States
Should the CJEU endorse cross-border provisional measures under Article 71b(2), the UPC would gain the ability to issue injunctions covering EU Member States that have not joined the UPC system — including Spain, Poland, and Croatia. This would significantly enhance the attractiveness of the UPC as a forum for provisional relief, since patent proprietors could obtain broader territorial coverage in a single proceeding rather than pursuing parallel national actions.
However, if the CJEU restricts such measures to UPC territory, patent proprietors will need to continue filing separate national proceedings in non-UPC EU Member States. The answer will shape enforcement strategy for years to come.
Authorised Representatives as Enforcement Targets
The intermediary question has the broadest structural impact. If authorised representatives can be enjoined, patent proprietors gain an enforcement lever that is both practical and potent. Rather than pursuing a manufacturer based in Hong Kong or Shenzhen, a patent proprietor could target the German, French, or Dutch entity whose regulatory function is the gateway to the EU market. An injunction against the authorised representative could effectively block market access for the infringing products across Europe.
Conversely, if the CJEU holds that compliance-focused services do not qualify as intermediary services, patent proprietors will need to continue pursuing manufacturers directly — a process that is often slow, expensive, and difficult to enforce outside the EU.
There is also a broader policy dimension. Authorised representatives exist because EU law requires them. Treating them as intermediaries liable to patent injunctions could discourage companies from taking on that role, potentially disrupting the EU’s own market surveillance framework. The CJEU will need to balance patent enforcement interests against the functioning of the regulatory system.
Strategic Takeaways
- Map your opponents’ EU gatekeepers. Patent proprietors should identify the authorised representatives of non-EU infringers as part of their pre-litigation diligence. If the CJEU confirms intermediary status, these entities become viable co-defendants and enforcement targets.
- Consider the UPC for broader territorial reach. Even before the CJEU rules, the referral signals that the UPC Court of Appeal is receptive to arguments for expansive jurisdiction. Patent proprietors should evaluate whether the UPC offers advantages over national courts for cross-border disputes.
- Prepare for both outcomes. If the CJEU narrows the intermediary concept or limits cross-border provisional measures, parallel national filings will remain necessary. Enforcement strategies should be flexible enough to adapt.
- Monitor the timeline. CJEU preliminary rulings typically take 12 to 18 months. The answers are expected in 2027 or early 2028. Until then, the stayed aspects of the Dyson v Dreame case — and the legal questions they raise — remain unresolved.
Conclusion
The Dyson v Dreame referral is a defining moment for the UPC. It forces the CJEU to clarify the boundaries of the UPC’s jurisdiction and the scope of patent enforcement tools in a market increasingly shaped by cross-border e-commerce and mandatory EU regulatory intermediaries. For patent proprietors, the stakes are high. A favourable ruling could transform the UPC into a far more powerful enforcement forum, capable of reaching non-EU manufacturers and covering non-UPC territories in a single action. An unfavourable one would confirm the limits of the system and the continued necessity of fragmented national enforcement. Either way, this is a case every patent proprietor doing business in Europe should be watching closely.
Authors
Alexander Lehmann
Mingyan Xi