UPC extends long-arm jurisdiction over non-EU-domiciled manufacturers (UPC_CFI_387/2025)

UPC Case Law | 10.09.2025

Court docket: LD Hamburg, decision of 14.08.2025 - CFI_387/2025 [EP 3 119 235]
Parties: Dyson Technology Ltd. v. DREAME International et. al. 

Contributor: Marcel-Xavier Peigné 

Headnote

  1. The UPC as a common Court has jurisdiction regardless of the defendant’s domicile for all patent infringements committed in a UPC member state (Art. 71b (2) in conjunction with Art. 7 sub (2) Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU). 

  2. When a Defendant is not domiciled and not active in the Member State who’s local division is applied to, but it is part of the same company group as other defendants, and when the attacked embodiments are the same, the claims are closely connected in the meaning of Art. 8 (1) Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU). 

  3. In order to establish international jurisdiction for the alleged infringement of the national part of a European patent outside of the UPCA-countries requires at least the plausible allegation of infringing acts by that party in the country in question (here Spain). 

  4. As it is not possible for non-EU based manufacturers to sale electronics in the EU without an Authorized Representative in the Union (regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products), the legal framework puts the Authorized Representative in the role of being an indispensable party in the distribution of electronic products. Thus, an Authorized Representative can serve as an anchor defendant with respect to Art. 8 (1) Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU). 

  5. An Authorized Representative in the Union (regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products) is an intermediary and can as such be subject to an injunction, Art. 63 (1) 2nd sentence UPCA. 


Relevance of the decision

Dyson vs Dreame examines whether, with respect to defendants 1 (Chinese manufacturer), 2 (a German Company distributing the manufactured products in Germany), 3 (a German Company said to be the European representative for Defendant 1) and 4 (a Swedish Company distributing the manufactured products in Sweden), the UPC has international jurisdiction not only for infringing acts in UPC contracting member states (namely Germany and Sweden) but also for national parts of the European Patent outside of the contracting member states (namely Spain). 

LD Hamburg follows recent Case law and exercises ‘long-arm jurisdiction’. This is in spite of the fact that the manufacturer is not domiciled in an EU member state. 

The court follows the established approach in deciding that, with respect to all defendants, UPC has international jurisdiction for the infringing acts in the UPC contracting member states.  

More interestingly, the UPC then examines whether it can issue orders for the infringement of the Spanish part. This requires a plausible allegation of infringing acts in the country in question, which was not presented for Defendants 2) and 4). The Division finds that with respect to Defendant 3, even if this defendant is not part of the same group as the other defendants and has not manufactured or imported the embodiments, the fact that they acted as an authorized representative of Defendant 1 in Spain makes them subject to international jurisdiction for acts committed in Spain before the UPC local division of Defendant 3’s home jurisdiction. For a definition of a representative, the Division refers to EU-Reg 2023/988 and EU-Reg 2019/1020. Thus, with respect to Defendant 3, UPC has international jurisdiction and a preliminary injunction was granted concerning the Spanish territory.  

Without an authorized representative, Defendant 1) cannot distribute its products in the EU. This creates a close connection in the sense of Article 8(1) of the Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU Regulation - 1215/2012 - EN - Brussels I bis - EUR-Lex) between defendants 1 and 3. As a result, also with respect to Defendant 1 (which is not domiciled in a member state), UPC has international jurisdiction and can exercise long-arm jurisdiction.  

The present orders are then based on Article 71b(2) of the Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU)  in conjunction with Article 7 sub(2) of the Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU) for infringements in UPC territory and Article 71b(2) of the Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU)  in conjunction with Article 8(1) of the Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU) for Spain. 

In this regard, LD Hamburg seems to construe Article 8(1) of the Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU) regardless of whether or not the co-defendants are seated within of the European Union.  

retour