May 2026 In its first ever referral to the CJEU, the UPC seeks clarification over its jurisdiction to decide on infringement of European patents in EU Member States that chose not to sign up to the UPC Agreement.
Background: Long-Arm Jurisdiction
The Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) was introduced as a central forum for enforcing European patents across the European Union (“EU”). However, not all EU Member States (e.g. Spain) signed up to the UPC Agreement (“UPCA”), and some countries in which European patents can be validated are not EU Member States at all (e.g. the United Kingdom). Thus, the UPC’s jurisdiction to hear cases regarding infringement of European patents is not as straightforward as it first appears.
In the case of Fujifilm v Kodak, the UPC’s Düsseldorf Local Division held (rather controversially!) that the UPC has jurisdiction to hear cases regarding infringement of the UK designation of a European patent, provided the alleged infringer is domiciled in a UPCA contracting state. This decision is discussed in more detail in our article of April 2025, and gave rise to the concept of “long-arm jurisdiction” at the UPC.
The UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction is now back in the spotlight, with the UPC’s Court of Appeal having recently referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) concerning this matter.
Recent Developments: Dyson v Dreame
In more detail, Dyson Technology Limited (“Dyson”) is the proprietor of European patent no. 3119235, which was validated with unitary effect and in Spain. Dyson sued Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited (“Dreame”) and Eurep GmbH (“Eurep”) for infringement of both the unitary patent and the Spanish designation of the European patent at the UPC’s Hamburg Local Division.
The Hamburg Local Division then granted a preliminary injunction against both Dreame and Eurep in respect of both the unitary patent and the Spanish designation of the European patent, despite (i) Dreame being established in Hong Kong, i.e. not an EU Member State, and (ii) Spain not being a UPCA contracting state.
This decision of the Hamburg Local Division is currently under appeal, and has given rise to an order in cases UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025 in which the UPC’s Court of Appeal has questioned its jurisdiction to hear certain aspects of this dispute.
Specifically, since Dreame is established in Hong Kong and Spain is not a UPCA contracting state, the UPC’s Court of Appeal has questioned whether it has jurisdiction to determine Dreame’s alleged infringement of the Spanish designation of the European patent. The UPC’s Court of Appeal notes, however, that Dreame sells its products to the EU market, including in Spain, using Eurep (a German company) as its EU representative for the purpose of enabling EU authorities to assess compliance of its products with EU product safety regulations.
This matter therefore hinges on whether Dreame’s use of services provided by Eurep, which is an EU-domiciled company, is sufficient to bring Dreame’s actions in Spain within reach of the long arm of the UPC.
Referred Questions
According to the UPC’s Court of Appeal, this matter is not clear-cut, and thus for the first time since it opened the UPC has asked the CJEU to clarify the relevant provisions of EU law.
Specifically, the UPC’s Court of Appeal has first asked the CJEU to confirm whether there is a risk irreconcilable judgments will be reached if it decides only on infringement of the unitary patent, leaving the matter of infringement of the Spanish designation of the European patent for the Spanish courts to decide. In such a case, the UPC’s Court of Appeal alleges it would have jurisdiction under Article 8(1) of EU Regulation No. 1215/2012 to ensure consistent application of law across the EU.
Next, the UPC’s Court of Appeal has asked the CJEU to confirm whether the fact Dreame sells its products across the EU (i.e. both in Spain and UPCA contracting states) using country-specific websites differing only in language means the UPC has jurisdiction over Dreame’s actions in Spain, and whether the fact Dreame uses the services of an EU-domiciled company (Eurep) affects the answer to this question.
Finally, the UPC’s Court of Appeal has asked the CJEU to decide whether Eurep can be considered an “intermediary” under Article 9(1) of EU Directive 2004/48/EC whose services are allegedly used by Dreame to infringe the unitary patent and the Spanish designation of the European patent. This is on the basis that Eurep does not itself control Dreame’s sales of allegedly infringing products and thus does not facilitate Dreame’s alleged infringing acts. Rather, Eurep merely enables Dreame’s compliance with relevant EU product safety regulations, albeit in the context of allegedly infringing products.
Conclusions
Long-arm jurisdiction might be a complex and controversial issue, but the order in Dyson v Dreame highlights that the UPC’s Court of Appeal is conscious the UPC should not overexert its authority.
Answers to the referred questions from the CJEU should therefore help clarify the UPC’s approach to determining infringement in the nine EU Member States that are not currently UPCA contracting states (Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia, and Spain).
For now, though, those commercialising products in European Patent Convention (“EPC”) contracting states are advised to take note: the UPC is willing to determine infringement beyond the borders of the UPC Agreement, so don’t assume you are out of the UPC’s reach.
