UPC CFI 851/2025
Sep 15, 2025·EP3119235 Unitary patent · ATTACHMENT FOR A HAND HELD APPLIANCE
- Case details
- StatusWritten PhaseActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Dyson Technology LimitedOperating co.
Respondents- Cellcom Ltd.Operating co.
- DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITEDOperating co.
- Teqphone GmbHOperating co.
- Eurep GmbHOperating co.
- Dreame Technology ABOperating co.
- Dreame Technology Netherlands BVOperating co.
Representatives- Anna Friese-Okoro-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Christian Stoll-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Volker Metzler
- Division
- Hamburg LD
- Technology
- Other fieldsOther consumer goods
- Language
- English
- First decided
- May 4, 2026
- EPO Opposition
- Dreame International (Hong Kong) LtdAdmissible2026-01-30
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Hamburg LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Sabine Klepsch | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Schilling | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Johansson | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Koen Callewaert | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Dyson Technology Limited (16 cases)·Cellcom Ltd. (3 cases)
This dispute contains 6 other proceedings
UPC CFI 946/2026·UPC CFI 2255/2025·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
- 2026-05-04Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The judge-rapporteur refused the defendants' requests to stay the infringement proceedings. The court declined to stay pending EPO opposition proceedings because no rapid EPO decision was expected, and declined a full stay pending a CJEU referral on jurisdiction, noting it was irrelevant for defendants liable as direct infringers. The court will proceed to schedule an oral hearing for late 2026.
Show the legal issues (6)
- Stay of proceedings pending EPO opposition (R. 295(a) RoP)
- Whether EPO opposition decision expected 'rapidly' within meaning of R. 295(a) RoP
- Stay of proceedings pending CJEU referral on jurisdiction (R. 295(i), R. 266 RoP)
- CJEU referral on Art. 8 No. 2 Brussels Recast — intermediary as anchor defendant
- Jurisdiction over non-EU defendants (UK-based Defendant 6)
- Right to effective legal remedy and fair hearing within reasonable time (Art. 6 ECHR, Art. 47 EU Charter)
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-10-19 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-19 | Not public |
| Document | 2026-10-19 | Not public |
| Document | 2026-10-19 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-19 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-19 | Not public |
| Submission Claimant | 2026-10-19 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-10-13 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-13 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-13 | Not public |
No rapid EPO decision expected: the deadline for responding to the opposition had not yet expired and no oral hearing date had been set by the EPO, so a stay pending EPO opposition was unwarranted
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 295(a) RoP; UPC_CoA_237/2025; UPC_CoA_22/2024The CJEU referral concerns intermediary liability/anchor-defendant questions under Art. 8 No. 2 Brussels Recast, which is irrelevant for defendants liable as direct infringers, and does not justify a full stay of proceedings
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 295(i) RoP; R. 266 RoP; UPC_CFI_2255/2025
Proceedings should be stayed pending EPO accelerated opposition proceedings expected to conclude within ~7 months, because it is highly likely the patent will be revoked
RespondentLegal basis: R. 295(a) RoP; Art. 100(a),(b),(c) EPCProceedings should be stayed or a CJEU referral ordered because the CoA has referred jurisdiction questions (including Art. 8 No. 1 Brussels Recast applicability) that may affect jurisdiction over Defendant 6 (UK-based)
RespondentLegal basis: R. 266.1 RoP; Art. 38 UPC Statute; CoA Order UPC_CoA_789/2025 & UPC_CoA_813/2025