Dyson v Dreame: The long-arm of the UPC, and its limits - the UPC's first CJEU referral

On 6 March 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal issued a landmark order in Dyson v Dreame & Eurep referring four questions concerning the extent of the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) – making it the UPC’s first ever referral to the CJEU.

Dyson is the proprietor of EP 3 119 235 (the Patent) relating to a handheld hair care appliance. On 2 May 2025, Dyson applied for a preliminary injunction at the UPC’s Hamburg Local Division against four defendants: (i) Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited (Dreame) – a Chinese consumer electronics company that manufactured and sold appliances (including multi-functional hairdryers) via its websites in Germany and Spain; (ii)  Eurep GmbH (Eurep) – Dreame’s Authorised Representative under the EU product safety regulations; (iii) Teqphone GmbH – Dreame’s German distributor; and (iv) Dreame Technology AB – Dreame’s Swedish distributor. Dyson alleged of its Patent by the defendants across all UPC member states and in Spain (a non-UPC state). 

Notably, Eurep did not sell or distribute Dreame’s products. Its sole function was to act as Dreame’s Authorised Representative – a role mandated by EU product safety regulations (Regulations 2023/988 and 2019/1020) for non-EU manufacturers wishing to place products on the EU market. In  practice, this meant acting as the formal contact point for consumers and authorities, and doing other administrative tasks under those regulations, including storing technical documentation.  

At first instance, the Hamburg Local Division found that some of the Dreame products complained of likely infringed the Patent and therefore issued a preliminary injunction against the defendants. The preliminary injunction was extended to Spain with respect to Dreame and Eurep. 

Both Dyson and Dreame appealed against the Hamburg Local Division’s order. Dyson argued that the preliminary injunction should extend to all the Dreame products complained of. Dreame, on the other hand, argued that the preliminary injunction should be set aside in its entirety.  

The UPC Court of Appeal held that the appeals raised two distinct sets of issues. In respect of the action against Dreame concerning the UPC territory, and the action against Teqphone and Dreame Technology, the Court of Appeal found that no questions of EU law arose and accordingly proceeded to determine those parts of the appeal. On those issues, the Court of Appeal sided with Dyson –  extending the preliminary injunction to cover the Dreame products complained of and dismissing Dreame's cross-appeal. 

However, the Court of Appeal stayed the appeal proceedings in respect of (i) the action against Dreame to the extent that it related to the territory of Spain, and (ii) the action against Eurep, on the basis that both raised unresolved questions of EU law which required a preliminary ruling from the CJEU.  The Court of Appeal identified four questions concerning the interpretation of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48 that it held had not previously been clarified in CJEU case law, and in respect of which the correct interpretation was not so obvious as to leave no scope for reasonable doubt. The four questions are as follows:  

In other words: can an EU-based intermediary act as an anchor defendant to bring a non-EU company within the UPC's jurisdiction in respect of infringement occurring in EU Member States that are not party to the UPCA? Separately, can the UPC exercise jurisdiction to grant provisional measures extending to non-UPC EU Member States where the same allegedly infringing products are offered across both UPC and non-UPC EU Member States – and does the presence of an EU-based intermediary strengthen that connecting link? And finally, can an Authorised Representative – whose role is defined entirely by EU product safety regulations and who carries out no infringing acts – be treated as an "intermediary" against whom a preliminary injunction can be granted under the IP Enforcement Directive? 

Comments 

Since the CJEU's ruling in BSH v Electrolux, there have been several cases at the UPC testing the boundaries of its long-arm jurisdiction. This referral – the UPC's first to the CJEU – will likely clarify the territorial reach of the UPC's jurisdiction including provisional measures proceedings, and in particular whether the UPC can order measures extending to non-UPC EU Member States. The answers will also clarify whether Authorised Representatives of non-EU manufacturers – whose roles are defined by EU regulations, whether product safety, medical devices or otherwise – and who carry out no infringing acts, can be used as a jurisdictional hook to invoke the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction or enjoined as intermediaries. Should the CJEU answer in the negative, it would have a chilling effect on anyone willing to take on the compliance role of an Authorised Representative – and would likely prompt non-EU manufacturers, particularly those operating in patent-intensive sectors such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices and consumer appliances, to rethink how they structure their EU operations to hedge against the UPC's long-arm jurisdiction.