Background
Dyson sued Dreame Technology in the UPC’s Hamburg Local Division over patents related to the Airwrap hair styler. Dreame, a Chinese home appliance manufacturer, challenged the UPC’s jurisdiction to order relief covering non-UPC territories. The Hamburg Local Division had granted a preliminary injunction for the Airwrap patent across all UPC contracting states plus Spain, but denied coverage for the UK. This mixed approach raised fundamental questions about the UPC’s jurisdictional reach.
The Court’s Holding
The UPC Court of Appeal referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union — the first-ever CJEU referral by the UPC on the question of long-arm jurisdiction. The referred questions address:
- Whether UPC local divisions can apply national long-arm jurisdiction provisions (such as those under French, German, or Italian procedural law) to assert jurisdiction over patent infringement occurring in countries that are not UPC contracting states
- The proper interpretation of the Brussels I bis Regulation (EU Regulation 1215/2012) as it applies to the UPC’s unique multi-state structure
- Whether the UPC, as a common court of multiple contracting states, has broader jurisdictional reach than any single national court
- The relationship between the UPC Agreement and the EU’s general jurisdictional framework for cross-border disputes
This referral acknowledges that the jurisdictional question is too fundamental to resolve through UPC case law alone — it requires binding CJEU interpretation of EU law.
Key Takeaways
- This is the UPC’s first CJEU referral on jurisdiction — a milestone that signals the UPC takes the territorial limits question seriously enough to seek authoritative EU-level guidance.
- Until the CJEU answers, uncertainty remains about whether UPC judgments can reach beyond the 18 contracting states to cover UK, Swiss, Spanish, or other non-UPC territory patents.
- The referral comes alongside the Adobe/OpenAI v. KeeeX ruling (UPC_CoA_922-925/2025), in which the Court of Appeal separately held that long-arm jurisdiction does not extend to non-UPC territories — but the CJEU referral could either confirm or modify that position.
- Patent holders with European patent portfolios should monitor this referral closely, as it will determine the UPC’s effectiveness as a pan-European enforcement forum.
Why It Matters
The UPC’s jurisdictional reach is one of the most consequential open questions in European patent law. If the CJEU ultimately holds that UPC local divisions can assert jurisdiction over non-contracting states through national long-arm rules, the UPC would become a far more powerful enforcement tool — potentially reaching the UK (post-Brexit), Switzerland, Spain, and other countries that have chosen not to join. Conversely, a ruling limiting jurisdiction to contracting states would confirm the UPC as an important but geographically bounded court, requiring parallel national proceedings for full European patent enforcement. The CJEU’s answer will shape patent litigation strategy across Europe for years to come.