UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 2255/2025

29. Dez. 2025·EP3119235 Einheitspatent · ATTACHMENT FOR A HAND HELD APPLIANCE

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Division
Hamburg LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Other fields
    Other consumer goods
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
7. Apr. 2026
EPA-Einspruch
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Einstweilige Verfügung erlassenMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC54% (38/70)124
Hamburg LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Sabine KlepschGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Stefan SchillingGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Stefan JohanssonGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Dyson Technology Limited (16 Verfahren)·DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED (9 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 6 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 946/2026·UPC CFI 851/2025·UPC CoA 789/2025·UPC CoA 813/2025·UPC CFI 387/2025 und 1 weitere

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Hamburg LD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-07
    Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Hamburg Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against Defendants 1)–4) (Dreame International HK, Dreame Technology AB, Dreame Technology Netherlands, and Teqphone GmbH) for direct infringement of claims 1 and 11 of EP 3119235, covering the UPCA territory and (for Defendants 1 and 3) Spain. The application was dismissed as to Defendant 5) (Cellcom Ltd.) for lack of international jurisdiction, and all claims relating to UK territory were rejected. Costs were split 70% to Defendants 1–4 and 30% to the Claimant, reflecting the partial success.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (13)
    • International jurisdiction under Art. 4 and Art. 8(1) Brussels I Recast for defendants domiciled in UPCA member states
    • Universal jurisdiction of UPC as court of member state under Art. 71a Brussels I Recast
    • Jurisdiction over Spanish national part of patent via Art. 8 Brussels I Recast co-defendant anchor
    • Lack of UPC jurisdiction over UK-based Defendant 5 and UK national part of patent
    • Role of EU authorized representative (Defendant 3) as intermediary or joint tortfeasor under UK law for Northern Ireland
    • GPSR (EU) 2023/988 applicability in Northern Ireland and foreseeability of jurisdiction
    • Claim construction of feature 1.6 (slot formed by overlap of wall ends vs. apertures in wall)
    • Literal infringement of claims 1 and 11 by Dreame Dazzle hair styler
    • Validity: novelty and inventiveness over prior art DE1942806A1, US 5,868,148, and US 5,212,366
    • Coanda effect and fluid flow around external surface of attachment
    • Balancing of interests for provisional measures under Art. 62(2) UPCA
    • Split cost decision proportional to partial success under Art. 69(2) UPCA
    • Penalty payments for non-compliance under Art. 63(2) UPCA / R. 354 RoP
Dokumente
Alle 163 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-06-19Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-19Nicht öffentlich
Application document Defendant2026-06-19Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-06-19Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-19Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-19Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-19Nicht öffentlich
Application Respondent2026-06-19Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-07Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-07Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • UPC has universal jurisdiction over all defendants domiciled in any UPCA Contracting Member State under Art. 4 Brussels I Recast (departing from prior panel position in UPC_CFI_387/2025)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 4, Art. 71a, Art. 71b(1) Brussels I Recast; Art. 31 UPCA

  • Defendant 3 (Dutch importer to EU including Spain) serves as anchor defendant for Defendant 1 under Art. 8(1) Brussels I Recast for Spanish national part of patent

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 8(1), Art. 71b(2) Brussels I Recast

  • Feature 1.6 ('slot formed by overlap of first end and second end of wall') is not limited to overlapping ends of plates building the wall; the Dazzle Attachment literally infringes claims 1 and 11

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC; Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • Patent is more likely than not novel and inventive over prior art O1 (DE1942806A1), O2 (US 5,868,148) and O3 (US 5,212,366) since those documents do not disclose features 1.9–1.11 (Coanda-effect airflow wrapping hair without mechanical rotation)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138 EPC

  • Balance of interests favours Applicant due to direct competition, price erosion risk, and difficulty enforcing damages against Chinese manufacturer

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(2) UPCA; Rule 211.3 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Defendant 3's role as EU authorized representative under GPSR creates sufficient connection to subject UK-based Defendant 5 to UPC jurisdiction as co-defendant under Art. 8(1) Brussels I Recast

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 8(1), Art. 71b(2) Brussels I Recast; GPSR (EU) 2023/988

  • Defendant 3 is liable as intermediary or joint tortfeasor under UK/English law for sales in UK (including Northern Ireland) because its EU representative role is a prerequisite for marketing in Northern Ireland

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62, Art. 63(1) UPCA; GPSR (EU) 2023/988; Windsor Framework

  • The patent is invalid due to insufficient disclosure and lack of novelty/inventiveness over O1, O2 and O3

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138 EPC

  • The Dazzle Attachment does not infringe feature 1.6 because it uses multiple individual airflow outlets rather than a slot formed by overlapping wall ends

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; Art. 25 UPCA

  • Defendants' interests must prevail in the balance because the attacked products are non-infringing and an injunction would massively impair their market position as direct competitors

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(2) UPCA; Rule 211.3 RoP