UPC_CoA_813/2025

ATTACHMENT FOR A HAND HELD APPLIANCE

AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealOral Phase

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
Directive 2004/48 Art.9(1)(a)	interlocutory injunction against intermediary whose services are used to infringe a patent	Binding	does Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48, or any other provision of Union law, preclude case-law of a national or common court under which an interlocutory injunction aimed at preventing or prohibiting infringement of a patent may be granted against that authorised representative?
Regulation 2023/988 (General Product Safety)	authorised representative obligations and intermediary status	Background	It is common ground that Regulation 2023/988 and Regulation 2019/1020 are applicable to the products of Dreame International at issue in the present proceedings.
Regulation 2019/1020 (Market Surveillance)	authorised representative obligations and intermediary status	Background	Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on market surveillance and compliance of products ('Regulation 2019/1020') apply

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
62	provisional measures — no requirement to limit injunction to specific infringing acts	Binding	The requirement to limit an injunction issued to the specific infringing acts which Dreame International, Teqphone and Dreame Technology had committed cannot be derived from Art. 62(1) and Art. 25(a) UPCA
25	scope of patent right / infringing acts	Binding	cannot be derived from Art. 62(1) and Art. 25(a) UPCA (cf. UPC_CoA_382/2024 APL_39664/2024, order of 14 February 2025, Abbott v Sibio, para. 158)

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
C-494/15	concept of 'intermediary' under Directive 2004/48 — service usable to infringe IP rights	Binding	CJEU, judgement of 7 July 2016, Tommy Hilfiger v Delta Center, C-494/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:528, para. 23
C-314/12	concept of 'intermediary' — no specific contractual relationship required	Binding	see also CJEU, judgement of 27 March 2014, UPC Telekabel Wien v Constantin Film, C‑314/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:192, para. 34 and 35

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CoA_382/2024	scope of injunction — no requirement to limit to specific previously committed infringing acts	Binding	cf. UPC_CoA_382/2024 APL_39664/2024, order of 14 February 2025, Abbott v Sibio, para. 158

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.