2026-03-06 - CoA - Dyson v. Dreame et al. - UPC_CoA_789/2025, APL_35434/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CoA_789/2025, APL_35434/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Dyson Technology Limited v. Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Kernaussage: ENGLISH:
2026-03-06 - CoA - Dyson
v.
Dreame et al. - UPC_CoA_789/2025, APL_35434/2025
ENGLISH:
1. While the function of a structural element must be considered when interpreting a claim feature relating to such an element, the interpretation must likewise take into account the physical and spatial configuration of the elements as taught by the patent. 2.The requirement to limit an injunction to the specific infringing acts which the infringer has committed cannot be derived from Art. 62(1) and Art. 25(a) UPCA. As a general rule, the fact that a party has infringed the patent is sufficient to establish a risk of further infringement through other acts of use, including infringing acts which it had not previously committed.
notable
The CoA (Panel 1a, Grabinski presiding) rules on cross-appeals from the Hamburg LD's PI order in a hair styling appliance patent case. The court corrects the CFI's interpretation of the claim feature 'overlap' — holding it must be determined from a viewpoint generally perpendicular to the outer surface of the first end of the wall, not merely perpendicular to air flow. Applying this construction, the CoA finds the New Dreame Products (Staggered Curling Attachments) also infringe and extends the PI. The court further holds that an injunction need not be limited to the specific infringing acts already committed — the fact of infringement suffices to establish risk of further infringement through other acts of use. Part of the proceedings (Spain territory, Eurep) are stayed pending a CJEU referral.
Stichwörter
ENGLISH:
Appeal; provisional measures; claim construction; injunction