Court of Appeal hears first appeal over long-arm jurisdiction in Dyson vs Dreame

The UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction has become a key topic of discussion among patent experts since the Düsseldorf local division’s ruling in FujiFilm vs Kodak. In early 2025, the Düsseldorf local division initially indicated jurisdiction for only one country outside UPC territory: the UK. The Mannheim local division later issued an injunction against Kodak covering the UK in July.

In August 2025, the court extended its reach further beyond its 18 member states. The Hamburg local division prohibited Chinese manufacturer Dreame from distributing certain hair styling devices in both UPC territory and Spain via preliminary injunction (case ID: UPC_CFI_387/2025).

The dispute concerns Dyson’s EP 3 119 235, which relates to an attachment for a handheld device, particularly a haircare appliance such as a hot brush. Dyson markets the Dyson Airwrap for curling hair, while Dreame sells competing products under the Dreame AirStyle and Dreame Pocket brands. Dyson claims these products infringe EP 235.

Mixed outcome

The Hamburg UPC judges only prohibited older versions, finding that Dreame’s main products Dreame Airstyle Pro and Dreame Pocket Neo do not infringe Dyson’s patent in the UPC territory or Spain. Both parties, unsatisfied with this mixed result, appealed (case IDs: UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025).

Today’s panel comprises court president Klaus Grabinski, Peter Blok and Emmanuel Gougé, with Simon Michels and Lorenzo Parrini as technically qualified judges. Judge rapporteur Peter Blok decided last year to hear both appeals together. Dyson seeks to extend the PI to Dreame’s newer products, while Dreame aims to prevent it entirely and contests the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction over Spain.

Long arm extends to Spain

Dyson sued the Chinese parent company Dreame International, a Swedish subsidiary, a German sales partner and Eurep GmbH in Ingolstadt. Eurep, acting as an authorised representative for non-EU manufacturers and as Dreame’s EU representative, serves as an anchor defendant.

The Hamburg judges provide detailed justification for the PI regarding Spain. The headnotes state: “To establish international jurisdiction for the alleged infringement of the national part of a European patent outside of the UPCA-countries requires at least the plausible allegation of infringing acts by that party in the country in question (here Spain).”

They add: “As it is not possible for non-EU based manufacturers to sell electronics in the EU without an Authorized Representative in the Union, the legal framework puts the Authorized Representative in the role of being an indispensable party in the distribution of electronic products. Thus, an Authorized Representative can serve as an anchor defendant with respect to Art. 8 (1) Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU).”

The ruling concludes: “An Authorised Representative (…) can as such be subject to an injunction, Art. 63 (1) 2nd sentence UPCA.” This puts the liability of EU representatives for international companies under scrutiny in Luxembourg today.

New claim against Dreame

Dyson has since filed another PI application against Dreame with the Hamburg local division under presiding judge Sabine Klepsch (case ID: UPC_CFI_0002255/2025) on 29 December. This PI targets Dreame’s new high-speed hair dryer, which Dyson claims also infringes its EP 235.

This PI also invokes long-arm jurisdiction, as Dyson seeks a sales ban for the UK.

DLA and Hogan Lovells again

Both Dyson and Dreame continue to rely on DLA Piper and Hogan Lovells teams respectively for the appeal and the new PI action in Hamburg.

DLA Piper partner Constanze Krenz leads for Dyson, as in earlier UPC cases against SharkNinja. The team includes senior associate David Kleß and associates Julia Pehe and Joschua Fiedler from DLA’s Munich office.

Hogan Lovells represents Dreame, with Anna-Katharina Friese-Okoro and Christian Stoll from the Hamburg office leading the case.