UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: 2. Mai 2025

UPC_CFI_387/2025

ATTACHMENT FOR A HAND HELD APPLIANCE

Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenHamburg LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Dyson Technology Limited obtained a preliminary injunction from the Hamburg Local Division against Dreame International (HK) and related Dreame entities for infringement of EP 3 119 235 (hair attachment for handheld appliances such as hair dryers). The decision established that EU-mandated Authorized Representatives can serve as both anchor defendants and intermediaries subject to injunctions under Art. 63(1) UPCA, and that the UPC has jurisdiction over all infringements in UPC member states regardless of defendant domicile, with costs shared equally as Dyson succeeded on only half its claims.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • UPC has jurisdiction regardless of defendant's domicile for infringements in UPC member states

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 71b(2) UPCA; Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast (1215/2012/EU)

    Hinweis: Court affirmed UPC's cross-border jurisdiction as a common court, extending beyond traditional domicile-based rules.

  • Claims against non-EU defendants are closely connected within the same defendant group, enabling joinder under Art. 8(1) Brussels I

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 8(1) Brussels I recast (1215/2012/EU)

    Hinweis: Where defendants not domiciled or active in Germany are part of the same corporate group attacking the same embodiments, claims are closely connected.

  • EU-mandated Authorized Representative (Eurep GmbH) qualifies as anchor defendant under Art. 8(1) Brussels I and as intermediary subject to injunction under Art. 63(1) UPCA

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63(1) UPCA; Regulations 2023/988/EU and 2019/1020/EU; Art. 8(1) Brussels I recast

    Hinweis: Court found that non-EU manufacturers cannot sell electronics in the EU without an Authorized Representative, making such representative an indispensable party in the distribution chain and thus both an anchor defendant and an intermediary subject to injunction.

  • Direct infringement of EP 3 119 235 claims 1 and 11 by Dreame's hair attachment for handheld appliance

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: EP3119235 claims 1 and 11

    Hinweis: Court granted PI against Defendants 1, 2, and 4 for direct infringement of the Dyson Airwrap-style attachment within UPCA territory, and against Defendants 1 and 3 also with respect to Spain.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Application for provisional measures as to remaining embodiments (second group of attacked products)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA

    Begründung: Applicant succeeded with only one of two groups of attacked embodiments; the remaining part of the application was dismissed without further explanation in the available excerpt.

  • International jurisdiction for Spanish national part of Defendant 4 (Dreame Technology AB)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 71b(2) UPCA; Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast

    Begründung: Court required at least a plausible allegation of infringing acts by the specific party in Spain; Defendant 4 did not meet this threshold.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
UPC jurisdiction regardless of defendant's domicile (Art. 71b(2) UPCA)anchor defendant and close connection under Art. 8(1) Brussels I recastEU Authorized Representative as intermediary under Art. 63(1) UPCAEU Authorized Representative as anchor defendant in patent infringement proceedingsplausible allegation of infringing acts required for national part jurisdictionno enforcement security required where applicant is a well-known manufacturer

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The injunction order reproduces the claim text of EP 3 119 235 claims 1 and 11 verbatim (tubular hair attachment with overlapping slot, Coanda effect fluid outlet), indicating these were the construed scope applied to Dreame's products. No specific disputed terms or divergent constructions are recorded in the excerpt.