Irides: Weekly global patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: The Unified Patent Court (UPC), the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada.

The Irides Weekly Update is our round-up of patent litigation news highlights from around the world.
 

UPC

Court of Appeal refers questions to the CJEU to clarify the scope of long-arm jurisdiction.
[UPC_CoA_789/2025, UPC_CoA_813/2025]

In its first ever referral to the CJEU, the Court of Appeal (CoA) has sought clarity on the application of long-arm jurisdiction in situations involving non-EU defendants alleged to have infringed patents using the services of an EU-based intermediary, such as an authorised representative. The referral also seeks clarity on whether Preliminary Injunctions (PIs) can be granted against non-EU defendants or Authorised Representatives (AR) in such circumstances. 

The reference arises from Dyson’s application for provisional measures against Dreame and its AR, which covers Spain in addition to UPC territories. Dreame’s products (hair treatment devices) fall under EU Regulation No. 2023/998 (the General Product Safety Regulation) and EU Regulation No. 2019/1020 (the Market Surveillance Regulation), which require an AR established in the EU. 

The two relevant defendants for the long-arm jurisdiction referral are Dreame International, a Hong Kong company that manufactures the accused devices that are sold via country specific websites for Germany and Spain (among others), and Eurep, a German company that appears on Dreame’s product packaging and websites as Dreame’s EU representative and acts as its AR in the EU. 

At first instance, the Hamburg Local Division (LD) determined that Eurep could be subject to a PI covering both UPC territories and Spain because, as the AR, it is an intermediary whose services are being used to infringe a patent within the meaning of Directive 2004/48/EC (the Enforcement Directive). The Hamburg LD found that it had jurisdiction over Eurep in respect of Spain because Eurep is domiciled in Germany (a UPC state). It also decided that an AR can act as an anchor defendant within the meaning of Art. 8(1) Brussels I bis Regulation (Recast) (BR), and thus the UPC has long-arm jurisdiction over Dreame International in respect of Spain via Eurep as anchor defendant. 

On appeal, the CoA confirmed that the UPC has jurisdiction over Eurep based on its domicile in Germany under Art. 4 and 71b(1) BR. However, it stayed the appeal proceedings insofar as they relate to the action against Dreame International in respect of Spain, and the action against Eurep in respect of all states.

Four questions were referred to the CJEU [see here decision for full questions].

In the first question, the Court focuses on the issue of anchor defendants. It asks whether Art. 8(1) BR in conjunction with Art. 71b(2) BR allows a common Court to hear a claim that a first company in a third state (i.e. a non-EU member state) infringes a European patent in an EU member state that is not a party to the instrument establishing the common Court, where a second company in an EU member state that is a 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 a party to the instrument establishing the common Court. For readers struggling with the language of the question, in the case at hand the common Court is the UPC, the company in a third state is Dreame International (based in Hong Kong), which is alleged to have infringed the patent in Spain (an EU but non-UPC state) via the services of Eurep (based in Germany, an EU and UPC country).

If the answer is yes, Art. 8(1) together with Art. 71b(2) could allow the UPC hear the claim against Dreame International for infringement of the Spanish designation of the patent via its jurisdiction over Eurep. An important point to note is that this the question refers generally to intermediaries whose services are used, rather than authorised representatives specifically. The question is not limited to PIs and would apply to any patent infringement action.

The remaining questions relate specifically to provisional measures, and may allow the UPC to hear the PI claim in relation to the Spanish patent even if the first question is answered in the negative.

In the second question, the Court asks whether Art. 71b(2), second sentence, can itself support 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. This addresses the question of whether the UPC can bring a PI action directly against Dreame International based on the link between its alleged infringing acts in the UPC territory and its acts in Spain.

In the third question, the Court asks whether the fact that the company established in a third state 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 is relevant to question 2. This addresses Eurep’s role as AR.

Finally, the Court asks whether the Enforcement Directive or any other provision of EU law precludes case law of national Courts or a common Court that allows a PI aimed at preventing or prohibiting infringement of a patent by a third party to be granted directly against the AR that performs the tasks laid down in the General Product Safety Regulation and the Market Surveillance Regulation on behalf of that third party.

This referral builds on the CJEU’s February 2025 judgment in BSH v Electrolux, which confirmed the long-arm jurisdiction of EU national Courts and the UPC. The referred questions seek clarity on the circumstances in which that reach can extend to non-EU manufacturers and what role EU-based group entities or AR can play in anchoring jurisdiction. For EU product safety and surveillance representatives, the answers could increase the litigation risk that comes with acting as the EU face of a third country manufacturer.
 

UK/UPC

UK High Court and UPC Mannheim Local Division issue divergent rulings in Amazon–InterDigital FRAND Dispute. 
[UPC_CFI_936/2025]

Two further judgments have been issued by the UK Court and the UPC’s Mannheim LD in the ongoing multi-jurisdictional dispute between Amazon and InterDigital over the terms of a RAND licence to InterDigital’s SEP video codec portfolio. We have previously reported on the jurisdictional wrangling between the UK’s Patents Court and the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division (see here).

In the UK Court’s judgment of 5 March 2026, Mr Justice Meade has “reluctantly” allowed Amazon to make a declaration in the proceedings demanded by the Mannheim LD, effectively curtailing the final RAND relief Amazon seeks in the UK concerning damages if InterDigital refuses to grant a RAND licence. Mr Justice Meade described the declaration frankly as: “a purely performative statement of Amazon’s intention which the UPC LD requires to be made in my Court for some reason.” He was furthermore careful to stress that it was “not, for the avoidance of doubt, a declaration required by me, or a declaration made by me, and is not an undertaking to me that InterDigital or anyone else can enforce.”

The Mannheim LD’s unprecedented requirement that Amazon make such a declaration before the UK Court was in spite of the fact that Amazon and InterDigital were both agreed that the UK action on final RAND relief should proceed to the September trial without the restriction set out in the declaration. The parties were also in agreement on how to end the “anti-suit battles” between them. However, the Mannheim LD, having found Amazon to be in breach of its Anti-Suit-Injunction, had still held that Amazon was liable for contempt and penalties in “the tens of millions of euros” unless Amazon curtailed the way it framed certain damages claims. Faced with this, and despite saying that he had “very considerable reservations” about the fairness and cross border effects of the UPC’s approach, Mr Justice Meade concluded that acceding to the declaration was the least bad way to avoid further cross-jurisdictional escalation and to preserve the timetable to the September 2026 UK trial on final RAND relief.  Any remaining challenges to the UPC Anti Suit Order are to be worked out on appeal within the UPC system. Two Orders were made by the UK Court which arose out of the hearing. The first, dated 5 March 2026, was a Case Management Order related to costs, while the second, dated 9 March 2026, was a Consent Order limiting the final RAND relief sought by Amazon. Further, unusually frank, commentary on the procedural history of the proceedings, judicial communication and comity are also provided by the UK Court.

Mr Justice Meade’s comment that “one or the other court has to make the decision to take no further action, and I have concluded that that should be [the UK Court]” sounded like the end of the matter. However, the Mannheim LD has subsequently issued a further Order on 9 March 2026, under Art. 82(4) UPCA and r. 354.4 RoP, indicating that the UPC considers the matter very much still open. In the Order, Judge Tochtermann requires that Amazon explain the differences between the UK Court’s 5 March and 9 March Orders. The UPC’s questions, however, appear to stem from an apparent misapprehension that the 9 March Order is an alteration to the 5 March Order. Further questions are also raised in relation to the legal effect of the order for “liberty to apply” – a standard form of wording in all such UK consent Orders – and whether this wording means that Amazon has not given “legally binding effect” to its declaration as required by the LD. As such, the LD has held that Amazon may not yet have avoided the position of penalties by the UPC. The UK Court’s comments on the difficulties of judicial communication that have arisen in the case, therefore, appear particularly apposite in light of this latest Order of the LD. 
 

Canada

The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board opens consultation to modernise and streamline hearing processes. 

On 5 March 2026, The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) opened a 60-day consultation on a suite of proposed non-binding Practice Directions intended to significantly modernise and streamline its hearings. These are being proposed against the backdrop of the PMPRB Rules of Practice and Procedure and are intended to be followed alongside the Rules, not replace them.

The proposals mark a shift away from the traditional in‑person, evidence‑heavy format. Key procedural changes include: 

paper hearings as the default for the evidentiary portion of PMPRB proceedings (with live hearings generally limited to oral argument only);

1. standardised disclosure through affidavits of documents, rather than broad discovery;

2. compressed, paper‑based motions practice, with short timelines;

3. standardised page limits and electronic filing as the norm;

4. expedited, abbreviated procedures for Failure‑to‑File (FTF) cases, reflecting their narrower scope;

5. mandatory disclosure of AI use in preparing submissions, with counsel remaining responsible for accuracy; and

6. greater use of virtual hearings for any parts of proceedings that will not be conducted through paper (although the PMPRB acknowledges that in-person proceedings will be more appropriate in certain circumstances).

The consultation signals a broader intention to move away from action‑style hearings, which have historically involved extensive witness testimony, and instead adopt application‑style proceedings modelled more closely on written advocacy. The PMPRB notes that the shift is expected to ensure procedural fairness and consistency across PMPRB hearings while also promoting procedures which are simpler, faster, less cumbersome and more adapted to modern approaches and technologies.
 

New episodes: You, Me and the UPC: Case by case

Episode 37: Court of Appeal refuses to stay revocation appeal pending EPO Opposition

Episode 38: Court of Appeal rules on both validity and infringement without remitting the case to the Local Division