The first CJEU referral from the UPC

It appears that the CJEU now has another opportunity to have its say on the issue of long-arm jurisdiction. This time as a result of an order issued by the UPC Court of Appeal on 6 March in Dyson v Dreame & Eurep case, in which it stayed the appeal proceedings insofar as they related to the territory of Spain and Eurep (the Authorised Representative for manufacturers based in a non-EU Member State); and requested that the CJEU give a preliminary ruling on 4 questions relating to long arm jurisdiction and anchor defendants.

The questions are as follows:

1. Must Article 8(1) in conjunction with Article 71b(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that a situation where, in proceedings before a common court within the meaning of Article 71a(2) of Regulation 1215/2012, a first company that is established in a third State is alleged to have committed an infringement of a national part of a European patent which is in force in an EU Member State that is not party to the instrument establishing the common court, and a second company that is established in an EU Member State that is party to the instrument establishing the common court is alleged to be an intermediary whose services are used by the first company to infringe in the EU Member State that is not party to the instrument establishing the common court, is capable of leading to “irreconcilable judgments” resulting from separate proceedings as referred to in Article 8(1) Regulation 1215/2012?
2. Must Article 71b(2), second sentence, of Regulation 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that a common court has jurisdiction in relation to an action for provisional measures against a company established in a third State that is alleged to have infringed a European patent in force in an EU Member State that is not party to the instrument establishing the common court, and in some or all EU Member States that are party to the instrument establishing the common court by offering the same products in all those EU Member States through websites that are identical apart from the language?
3. Is the fact that the company uses the services of a company that is established in an EU Member State that is party to the instrument establishing the common court in order to infringe a relevant circumstance in answering this second question?
4. Does Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48 or any other provision of Union law preclude case-law of a national or common court under which an interlocutory injunction aimed at preventing or prohibiting infringement of a patent by a third party by placing products on the market to which 9Regulation 2023/988 and 2019/1020 apply may be granted against an authorised representative that performs the tasks laid down in these Regulations on behalf of the third party?