UPC CFI 387/2025

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

Note: 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

Note: 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

Note: 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

Note: 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.

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

Reason: 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)

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