Article on case UPC_CFI_387/2025, ACT

Cross-Border Injunctions before the Unified Patent Court: Lessons from the Dyson v. Dreame Decision

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) continues to shape the European patent litigation landscape, and its recent decision in Dyson v. Dreame (Final Order, 14th of August 2025, UPC_CFI_387/2025, ACT_20368/2025) offers valuable guidance for both claimants and defendants when it comes to cross-border injunctions. The Hamburg Local Division’s ruling illustrates how the UPC approaches jurisdiction, the role of intermediaries, and the balancing of interests in granting preliminary measures.

Jurisdiction and the Role of Anchor Defendants

A key aspect of the ruling lies in the court’s reliance on the Brussels I recast Regulation (1215/2012/EU) and the UPCA’s jurisdictional framework. The UPC confirmed that it has jurisdiction over patent infringements in all Contracting Member States, regardless of where the defendant is domiciled, provided that the alleged harmful act occurred in a UPC state. This makes the UPC a powerful forum for claimants, allowing them to target non-EU defendants (as well as non-UPC-EU-members) whose products circulate in the Union.
The decision also underscores the concept of an “anchor defendant” (an anchor defendant is a person who is made a defendant to a claim for the primary purpose of vesting jurisdiction to hear the claim in a certain court).
In this case, the court held that an EU-based entity acting as the authorized representative of a non-EU manufacturer could serve as an anchor defendant. The German-based authorized representative of the non-EU manufacturer (Defendant 3) was held to be an indispensable party, making it possible to establish jurisdiction over acts allegedly committed in Spain, a non-UPC Member State (pg. 12 ff., mn. 45 ff. of the order). By linking Defendant 1 (Hong Kong) with Defendant 3 (Germany), the Court extended its reach to the Spanish national part of the patent, relying on Art. 8 (1) Brussels I Recast.
For claimants, this means that carefully choosing the right defendant can expand the geographical scope of an injunction. For defendants, this highlights the risk that group companies or intermediaries can expose the entire corporate structure to UPC jurisdiction.

Intermediaries and Injunctions

Another vital takeaway is the treatment of intermediaries (pg. 13 f., mn. 49 ff. of the order). The court ruled that an authorized EU representative (Defendant 3) — necessary under EU product safety regulations for placing electronics on the market — was not merely a passive service provider. Instead, it was considered indispensable to the distribution chain and therefore subject to injunctions under both the UPCA and national law. The Court emphasized that this is a pre-marketing obligation, not a mere after-sales service. Accordingly, Defendant 3 could be subjected to an injunction as an intermediary under Art. 63 (1) para. 2 UPCA and Art. 9 (3) Directive 2004/48/EC.
This recognition of intermediaries as potential targets of injunctions broadens the range of parties that claimants can pursue.
Defendants, on the other hand, must be aware that even if they are not directly importing or selling products, their regulatory or logistical roles may still suffice to make them subject to UPC measures. This increases the compliance risks for EU-based subsidiaries, distributors, and representatives of non-EU companies.

Balancing of Interests and Market Impact

The UPC applies Article 62 (2) UPCA and Rule 211.3 RoP to weigh the parties’ interests. In this case the risk of irreparable harm and market disruption was central (pg. 35 f., mn. 138 ff.). Dyson successfully argued that Dreame’s lower-priced, allegedly infringing products directly threatened its market share and pricing structure. The court agreed, stressing that the patented feature was a core selling point and that the loss of market share could not be adequately compensated by damages later.
For claimants, this confirms that demonstrating urgency, direct competition, and the risk of market erosion will be decisive in obtaining preliminary injunctions. Defendants, in turn, should focus on countering these arguments by emphasizing alternative competition, challenging the urgency of the request, or raising serious doubts on the validity of the patent.

Practical Implications

For claimants, the decision shows that the UPC is willing to grant wide-reaching injunctions, even extending to non-UPCA territories like Spain, provided that jurisdiction can be anchored via intermediaries. Speed in filing and strong evidence of infringement and market harm remain essential.
For defendants, the ruling is a reminder that their entire European distribution structure may come under scrutiny. Being designated as an EU representative or intermediary can expose them to injunctions, even if they are not engaged in direct sales. Coordinating defense strategies across group companies and contesting the proportionality of measures will be crucial.

Conclusion

The Dyson v. Dreame decision demonstrates the UPC’s willingness to assert broad jurisdiction and grant cross-border injunctions. Claimants should carefully leverage anchor defendants and intermediaries to maximize the territorial reach of injunctions. Defendants, conversely, must prepare for the heightened risks of UPC litigation, especially when operating in complex corporate and distribution networks. The ruling underscores that in UPC practice, strategic foresight and procedural speed are just as important as substantive patent arguments.