Dyson markets a hair treatment device which can be used to curl hair, EP 3 119 235. Dreame develops consumer goods including hair dryer products. There is a partial stay and referral to the CJEU.
These questions are about irreconcilable judgments (Q1), jurisdiction over third-country company (Q2), Role of an EU intermediary (Q3) and Injunction against authorised representative (Q4):
In short:
Irreconcilable judgments: Can Article 8(1) of the Brussels I-bis Regulation apply when one company outside the EU allegedly infringes a European patent in an EU state not participating in a common patent court, while an EU-based intermediary participates in the infringement, creating a risk of conflicting judgments in separate proceedings?
Jurisdiction over third-country company: Does Article 71b(2) give a common court jurisdiction to order provisional measures against a company from a third country that allegedly infringes a European patent across several EU states (both participating and non-participating) through identical websites?
Role of an EU intermediary: Does it matter for jurisdiction if the third-country company carries out the alleged infringement through a company established in an EU Member State that participates in the common court?
Injunction against authorised representative: Does EU law, including Article 9(1)(a) of the Enforcement Directive, allow courts to issue interim injunctions against an authorised representative (acting under EU product safety/market surveillance rules) to stop patent infringement by the third-party manufacturer?
1. Must Article 8(1) in conjunction with Article 71b(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that a situation where, in proceedings before a common court within the meaning of Article 71a(2) of Regulation 1215/2012, a first company that is established in a third State is alleged to have committed an infringement of a national part of a European patent which is in force in an EU Member State that is not party to the instrument establishing the common court, and a second company that is established in an EU Member State that is party to the instrument establishing the common court is alleged to be an intermediary whose services are used by the first company to infringe in the EU Member State that is not party to the instrument establishing the common court,
is capable of leading to “irreconcilable judgments” resulting from separate proceedings as referred to in Article 8(1) Regulation 1215/2012?
2. Must Article 71b(2), second sentence, of Regulation 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that a common court has jurisdiction in relation to an action for provisional measures against a company established in a third State that is alleged to have infringed a European patent in force in an EU Member State that is not party to the instrument establishing the common court, and in some or all EU Member States that are party to the instrument establishing the common court by offering the same products in all those EU Member States through websites that are identical apart from the language?
3. Is the fact that the company uses the services of a company that is established in an EU Member State that is party to the instrument establishing the common court in order to infringe a relevant circumstance in answering this second question?
4. Does Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48 or any other provision of Union law preclude case-law of a national or common court under which an interlocutory injunction aimed at preventing or prohibiting infringement of a patent by a third party by placing products on the market to which Regulation 2023/988 and 2019/1020 apply may be granted against an authorised representative that performs the tasks laid down in these Regulations on behalf of the third party?
IPPT20260306, UPC COA, Dyson_v_Dreame
IEPT20260306, UPC-CoA, Dyson v Dreame UPC_CoA_789/2025
UPC_CoA_813/2025
