2026-04-07 - LD Hamburg - Dyson v. Dreame et al. - UPC-CFI-0002255/2025

ENGLISH: 1. The UPC is considered to be a court of member state just like the national EU Member State courts (Art. 71a BR), with a territory encompassing all Contracting Member States. Hence, the UPC has international jurisdiction under Art. 4 BR for every defendant, who is based or domiciled within any Contracting Member State of the UPCA. 2. Legal requirements that are not designed to ensure a certain level of protection within the UK, or at least Northern Ireland as a part of the UK, but to protect from an abstract risk in case the goods end up in the EU, are not a reasonably foreseeable basis to open jurisdiction based on the principle of co-defendants under Art. 8 BR. 3. The fact, that a party is the Authorized Representative for a non-EU based manufacturer in Northern Ireland, is – as far as the evidence shows – not a sufficient basis for qualifying this party being a joint tortfeasor with the actual importer or an intermediary in the meaning of the English law (cf. Art. 62 and 63 (1) UPCA). 4. As pursuant to Art. 1 (2) and (3) of the Guidelines, the ceilings on recoverable costs apply to the costs of representation at each instance of the proceedings, irrespective of the number of parties, it follows that in a split cost decision according to Art. 69(2) UPCA the costs should be split proportionally, not per party.

Preliminary injunction granted against Dreame (D1-D4) for infringement of EP 3 119 235 across UPCA territory and Spain. Claim against UK-based D5 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Hamburg LD reversed its own prior claim construction (Dyson/Dreame I), now finding literal infringement of claims 1 and 11. Key jurisdictional holdings: UPC has universal jurisdiction under Art. 4 Brussels I recast for any defendant domiciled in a UPCA Contracting Member State; Art. 8 anchor defendant jurisdiction established for Spain via importer; GPSR-required EU representative role in Northern Ireland insufficient to establish foreseeability for Art. 8 co-defendant jurisdiction over a UK importer. Costs split 70/30 proportionally, not per party.