2026-03-06 - CoA - Dreame et al. v. Dyson - UPC_CoA_813/2025, APL_35749/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CoA_813/2025, APL_35749/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB v. Dyson Technology Limited
Kernaussage: ENGLISH:
2026-03-06 - CoA - Dreame et al.
v.
Dyson - UPC_CoA_813/2025, APL_35749/2025
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) dismisses Dreame's appeal against the Hamburg LD's PI order in a hair styling appliance patent case. This is the companion decision to UPC_CoA_789/2025 (Dyson's appeal), issued on the same date with identical reasoning. 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. The court confirms infringement by the Old Dreame Products and extends the finding to New and Newest Dreame Products. An injunction need not be limited to specific infringing acts already committed. Part of the proceedings are stayed pending CJEU referral.
Stichwörter
ENGLISH:
Appeal; provisional measures; claim construction; injunction