Spanish court issues preliminary injunction against a Hong Kong-based manufacturer, following UPC's accusation and legal action involving anchor infringement
The Hamburg division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has made a significant decision that could impact non-EU manufacturers, particularly in sectors such as technology, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals.
In the case UPC_CFI_387/2025, Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against Dreame International (Hong Kong) Limited and others to block allegedly infringing sales of the Dreame Airstyle Pro and Dreame Pocket Neo hair stylers. The UPC's jurisdiction over the case was based on Article 4(1) of the recast Brussels Regulation, as Eurep and the local distributors were incorporated in UPC countries.
Dreame International, based in Hong Kong, had appointed a German entity, Eurep GmbH, as its "authorised representative" in the EU. The products were manufactured by Dreame International and sold in Germany and Sweden via local distributors Teqphone GmbH and Dreame Technology AB.
The court's reasoning was based on the anchor defendant, Eurep, being required by EU's general product safety regulations. The court suggested that the principle of using an EU-domiciled anchor defendant to take jurisdiction over a manufacturer's alleged infringements beyond the UPC territory would also apply to "third countries", or non-EU states.
The court granted a preliminary injunction against all four defendants for the UPC territory, and against both Dreame International and Eurep for Spain. The court's expansive approach could be a concern for non-EU manufacturers, as they may not have much choice over the appointment of a representative given the requirement to appoint one that is EU-domiciled.
The court considered the legal consequences of its ruling, noting that the appointment of an authorised representative in an EU state could subjugate a non-EU manufacturer under the jurisdiction of the UPC in that Member State. This decision may prompt non-EU manufacturers to consider whether to appoint an EU representative in a country that is not participating in the UPC if they are concerned about UPC litigation.
The UPC's decision in this case marks a significant new exercise of its long-arm jurisdiction. The logic of the court's decision seems equally applicable to other sectors where non-EU manufacturers must have an EU-based entity, such as medical devices and pharmaceuticals. If they are domiciled in a UPC country, non-EU pharmaceutical and medical device companies could be drawn into proceedings for alleged infringements not only in the UPC territory but across the EU and potentially non-EU third countries.
The claimant provided "plausible facts" that Eurep infringed in Spain as an intermediary and could be injunctable under the Spanish Patent Act, establishing Eurep's subject to the court's international (or long arm) jurisdiction. The court's decision may serve as a precedent for future cases involving non-EU manufacturers and their EU-based representatives.
Read also:
- Ford Discontinues Popular Top-Seller in Staggering Shift, Labeled as a "Model T Event"
- Recorded surge in electric vehicle registrations during the initial half of the year
- Dubai-bound: Omega Seiki Mobility, an electric vehicle company from India, prepares for assembly establishment
- Polestar CEO, Lohscheller, voices concern on the ongoing debates about competitors' products: "Maintain focus, avoid distractions"
