2025-08-14 - LD Hamburg - Dyson v. Dreame et al. - UPC_CFI_387/2025

1. The UPC as a common Court has jurisdiction regardless of the defendant’s domicile for all patent infringements committed in a UPC member state (Art. 71b (2) in conjunction with Art. 7 sub (2) Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU). 2. When a Defendant is not domiciled and not active in the Member State who’s local division is applied to, but it is part of the same company group as other defendants, and when the attacked embodiments are the same, the claims are closely connected in the meaning of Art. 8 (1) Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU). 3. In order to establish international jurisdiction for the alleged infringement of the national part of a European patent outside of the UPCA-countries requires at least the plausible allegation of infringing acts by that party in the country in question (here Spain). 4. As it is not possible for non-EU based manufacturers to sale electronics in the EU without an Authorized Representative in the Union (regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products), the legal framework puts the Authorized Representative in the role of being an indispensable party in the distribution of electronic products. Thus, an Authorized Representative can serve as an anchor defendant with respect to Art. 8 (1) Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU). 5. An Authorized Representative in the Union (regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products) is an intermediary and can as such be subject to an injunction, Art. 63 (1) 2nd sentence UPCA.

The Hamburg Local Division (partially) granted an application for provisional measures and ordered a preliminary injunction also extending to Spain. The Court dealt in detail with the requirements for provisional measures and the concept of "anchor defendants". [To be amended]