Dyson v Dreame – Hamburg Local Division, 7 April 2026
In its decision of 7 April 2026, the Hamburg Local Division granted a preliminary injunction in favour of Dyson concerning EP 3 119 235, relating to a hair styling attachment.
The Court confirmed that the UPC has universal jurisdiction under Art. 4 Brussels I Recast over defendants domiciled in UPC Member States, including for non-UPC territories such as Spain and the United Kingdom. At the same time, it significantly limits the use of Art. 8(1) Brussels I Recast where the alleged connection between co-defendants is not reasonably foreseeable – particularly in the context of UK-related acts involving regulatory compliance structures.
On the merits, the Court found literal infringement and granted a preliminary injunction covering the UPCA territory and Spain, but refused relief for the UK.
The Court reaffirmed that the UPC qualifies as a “court of a Member State” within the meaning of Art. 71a Brussels I Recast. As a consequence, Art. 4(1) Brussels I Recast applies fully to the UPC.
The key clarification is that: i) The UPC’s jurisdiction extends to all Contracting Member States as a single territory, and ii) For defendants domiciled in a UPC Member State, this jurisdiction is universal, covering infringements of national parts of European patents outside the UPC territory, including Spain and even the UK.
For Spain, the Court accepted jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant via Art. 8(1), relying on a Dutch co-defendant acting as importer. The Court found a sufficiently close connection, as both entities were jointly involved in EU distribution and in particular acts relating to the Spanish territory.
However, the Court drew a clear limit for UK-related claims because i) The Dutch entity, acting as EU authorised representative, could not serve as anchor defendant for a UK-based distributor and ii) The regulatory framework (in particular the continued application of EU product safety rules in Northern Ireland) was considered insufficient to establish foreseeability for Art. 8(1).
While the Court accepted jurisdiction over the Dutch entity even for UK-related acts (based on Art. 4), it ultimately rejected liability under UK law:
As a result, no injunction was granted for the UK, and the claim against the UK distributor was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In the balancing of interests, the Court emphasised a direct competition between the parties, a risk of market share loss and price erosion, and the importance of the patented feature for product performance.
This justified the grant of a preliminary injunction.
