Dyson wins UPC’s first Spanish injunction

Context: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) appears to be the primary venue for those seeking to leverage the European Court of Justice decision in BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux on long-arm jurisdiction (February 25, 2025 ip fray article). Last month, the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division (LD) granted the UPC’s first-ever UK injunction (July 18, 2025 ip fray article). The Hague LD previously recognized, in a judge-rapporteur’s order denying a preliminary objection, the concept of an anchor defendant (item 1 of our May 25, 2025 UPC Roundup).

What’s new: Today is a big day for the UPC’s application of BSH:

The Hamburg LD granted Dyson a preliminary injunction against hair-styling devices made by its Chinese rival Dreame (PDF) that covers all 18 UPC contracting member states as well as Spain. This makes it the UPC’s first-ever Spanish injunction and first-ever BSH-based preliminary injunction (PI; formally called “provisional measures” in the UPC). And it is the UPC’s first-ever injunction against a defendant who is liable on BSH grounds because of an anchor defendant (actually even two) from the same corporate group being based in UPCland. Futhermore, the Hamburg LD joins the Dusseldorf LD (July 15, 2025 ip fray article) in holding that European authorized representatives (EARs) of products are liable for patent infringement.
The Hague LD affirmed, by way of a panel decision (PDF), the above-mentioned decision by the judge-rapporteur in Genevant & Arbutus v. Moderna that also involved (without explicitly mentioning it) the concept of an an anchor defendant.

Direct impact:

1. Dreame can appeal the PI and seek a stay from the Court of Appeal (CoA), but the hurdle is high.
2. In the COVID vaccine case in the Hague, Moderna can seek a discretionary review by the CoA at this stage, but may have to wait until it can appeal from a final judgment.

Wider ramifications: Provided that this decision is upheld on appeal (there are reasons to believe that the CoA will apply BSH just the same way), it shows that Spain should join the UPC given that the UPC will increasingly be able to order remedies relating to that country at any rate. Also, the Hamburg LD joins

The patent-in-suit is EP3119235 (“Attachment for a hand held appliance”). The accused products have such names as Dreame AirStyle (Pro) and Dream Pocket (Neo).

Given the BSH and EAR ramifications, it bears taking a closer look at the list of defendants:

1. Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China

2. Teqphone GmbH of Bad Nauheim (near Frankfurt), Germany

3. Eurep GmbH of Ingolstadt (near Munich), Germany

4. Dreame Technology AB of Stockholm (Bromma), Sweden

Defendant #1 is the one that makes the accused products.

Defendant #2 is the “Official Distributor of [Defendant #1]”. It operates the German dreame.de website and a retail store in Frankfurt.

Defendant #3 is mentioned on the packaging of the accused products as the EAR. According to the defendants, that contractual relationship ended on May 23, 2025.

Defendant #4 is a subsidiary of Defendant #1, operates the Swedish version of the dreamtech.com website (www.se.dreamtech.com) and a Stockholm retail store.

Dreame argued that it had removed the product in question from most major European markets, but according to the decision, its availability in France and Italy was undisputed.

With a view to validity, Dyson noted that the patent was already exposed to third-party submissions to the patent office during prosecution, making it somewhat battle-tested.

Dyson argued that it has a particularly legitimate interest in a PI given the competitive relationship with Defendant #1, and argued that enforcing a future damages award against that company in China would be “almost impossible” (as the court paraphrases it). Dreame tried to dispute the competitive relationship given the difference in price (more than twice that of the accused products), but that argument would hardly convince any court: much to the contrary, if an (alleged) infringer undercuts the products made by the patent holder, that weighs in favor of an injunction. Price ersion by the availability of competing products has been repeatedly recognized by the UPC as a factor supporting an injunction request. That was also the case here:

The panel agrees with the Applicant that the patented invention belongs to the main selling factors as the invention directly relates to the hair treatment itself, which provides a significant improvement over other products, in which curling the hair must be achieved by manually wrapping it around the attachment. Moreover, the attacked embodiments are offered for half the price, which is a strong indicator for the risk of loss of market shares and price erosion.

Dyson prevailed on only a subset of its infringement allegations. Of the accused products, the Dreame Airstyle and the Dreame Pocket were held to infringe, but not the Dreame Airstyle Pro or Dreame Pocket Neo. That fact also weighed in favor of an injunction, given that Dreame will not be shut out of the relevant markets entirely.

The decision discusses the general application of BSH to the UPC, a common court of EU member states, and then addresses the specific question of long-arm jurisdiction covering Spain. Dyson’s arguments concerning liability for infringement under the Spanish Patent Act appeared plausible to the court. Defendant #3 (the EAR) is described as “an indispensable party in the distribution of the attacked embodiments in the European Union” and therefore also viewed as being involved with the Spanish distribution of the products in question.

After finding an infringement of a presumed-valid patent, the court then analyzes the different defendants’ liability:

Defendant #1 (the Hong Kong SAR entity) “is liable for the patent infringement in the UPCA countries and in Spain as it is the producer and website operator in European countries and thereby inter alia offering the products.”
Defendant #2 is liable as a Germany-based distributor.
Defendant #3 is liable as the EAR, and the court agrees with Dyson that is an intermediary. Without the EAR, the products couldn’t even get a European certificate called CE.
Defendant #4 is liable as a Swedish affiliate of Defendant #1.
The tricky part is then to what extent Defendant #3 can be enjoined with a view to the Spanish market. That is where the decision has to look at Spanish law and is not convinced that the EAR is “liable as an importer under Art. 59 of Spanish Patent Act (Law 24/2015).” But, at minimum, it’s an intermediary within the meaning of Art. 63 of the UPC Agreement (UPCA) and under a similar rule under Spanish patent law. The fact that Spain is an EU member state made it easier for the court to analyze the legal framework, given that the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) also applies in Spain.

All four defendants were enjoined with respect to UPCland, and Defendants #1 and #3 additionally with respect to Spain. That means Defendant #1, while based outside of UPCland, is enjoined with respect to a non-UPCland country only because there are anchor defendants (here, Defendants #2 and #3) in UPCland. That is different from the Mannheim UK injunction in Fujifilm v. Kodak (where all three defendants were domiciled in UPCland).

No enforcement security is required, given Dyson’s strong financial position (which was apparently undisputed).