UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 2255/2025

Dec 29, 2025·EP3119235 Unitary patent · ATTACHMENT FOR A HAND HELD APPLIANCE

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Hamburg LD
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Other consumer goods
Language
English
First decided
Apr 7, 2026
EPO Opposition
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Hamburg LDLockedLocked
Judge Sabine KlepschLockedLocked
Judge Stefan SchillingLockedLocked
Judge Stefan JohanssonLockedLocked

At the UPC: Dyson Technology Limited (16 cases)·DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED (9 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 6 other proceedings

UPC CFI 946/2026·UPC CFI 851/2025·UPC CoA 789/2025·UPC CoA 813/2025·UPC CFI 387/2025 and 1 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Hamburg LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-04-07
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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
Documents
Show all 163 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-06-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-19Not public
Application document Defendant2026-06-19Not public
Receipt2026-06-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-19Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-19Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-19Not public
Application Respondent2026-06-19Not public
Receipt2026-05-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-07Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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)

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138 EPC

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA; Rule 211.3 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

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