Drop anchor! UPC uses anchor defendant to grant first Spanish preliminary injunction against a Hong Kong-based manufacturer

In Dyson Technology Limited v Dreame International (Hong Kong) Limited and others UPC_CFI_387/2025, the claimant sought a preliminary injunction to block allegedly infringing sales of the Dreame Airstyle Pro and Dreame Pocket Neo hair stylers, not only in UPC countries, but also in Spain (an EU country that is not participating in the UPC system). The products were manufactured by a Hong Kong-based company, Dreame International, and sold in Germany and Sweden via two local distributers, Teqphone GmbH and Dreame Technology AB.

In addition, Dreame International had appointed a German entity, Eurep GmbH, as its "authorised representative" in the EU. The court relied on this entity as an anchor to extend its jurisdiction to cover all of Dreame International's alleged infringements, even beyond the UPC territory, to Spain.

This decision marks a significant new exercise of the UPC's so-called long arm jurisdiction. It is another decision in which the UPC has taken an expansive approach to its jurisdiction, by showing a willingness to use the recast Brussels Regulation and anchor defendants creatively to take jurisdiction over parties and infringements beyond the UPC territory. Although the UPC's decision concerned consumer products, its rationale could extend to medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers based outside of the EU and therefore its impact is potentially wide reaching.

International jurisdiction

Under Article 4(1) of the recast Brussels Regulation, the UPC had jurisdiction over the local distributors and Eurep because they were incorporated in UPC countries. The court stated that it is established case law of the UPC that "the UPC has international jurisdiction also with respect of the infringement of national parts of an European Patent outside of the UPCA countries and even outside of the European Union", which it noted was in line with the Court of Justice of the EU's decision in BSH v Electrolux. Read our Insights for more detail:

• Infringement claim amendment allowed to include non-UPC territories after CJEU Electrolux decision,
• Paris Local Division confirms Unified Patent Court as venue for cross-border litigation in Europe and beyond, and
• UPC grants first-ever injunction for infringement of UK designation of European Patent.

The Hamburg local division concluded that jurisdiction based on domicile under Article 4(1) of the recast Brussels Regulation is a "universal jurisdiction", which covers infringing acts in non-UPC states if there is at least a "plausible allegation" of those acts by the defendant in the country in question.

The court held that the claimant had provided "plausible facts" that Eurep infringed in Spain as an intermediary and that it could be injuncted under the Spanish Patent Act. The court therefore held that Eurep was subject to the court's international (or long arm) jurisdiction.

Dreame International is based in Hong Kong, so the court could not exercise universal jurisdiction over it based on domicile. This would have meant that UPC's jurisdiction was limited to the company's acts in the UPC territory. The court therefore considered whether Eurep could serve as a UPC-domiciled "anchor defendant" to pull Dreame International into the court's universal jurisdiction.

The court noted that it is mandatory under EU product safety regulations for a non-EU-based manufacturer to have an "authorised representative" in the EU. Eurep was therefore "an essential party in the distribution in the EU for the electronic products in question" that provided an "indispensable service to the actual infringer", and without which Dreame International could not sell its products in the EU. It observed that Eurep could "stop any distribution by its own will" because "by terminating its role, the distribution of the products are illegal".

This meant that there was the necessary "close connection" in order for the court to have jurisdiction over Dreame International based on Eurep's place of domicile under the anchor defendant provision in Article 8(1) of the recast Brussels Regulation. As such, the court decided that it had jurisdiction over Dreame International not only in respect of its infringements in the UPC territory, but across the entire EU, including Spain.

PI granted

The court concluded that the patent was more likely than not to be infringed. It noted that the defendants had not submitted any "substantiated" validity attacks and that the patent had been granted despite third-party observations during prosecution.

Having weighed the interests of the parties – including that they were competitors in the field of hair-treatment devices, damage to the claimant's market share, and that Dreame's Airstyle Pro and Pocket Neo resembled the claimant's own hairstyling product but were half the price – the court concluded that a preliminary injunction was proportionate. This was granted against all four defendants for the UPC territory. For Spain, a preliminary injunction was granted against both Dreame International and Eurep.

A 'burden', but 'not unfair'

The court recognised the legal consequences of its ruling, namely that the appointment of an authorised representative in an EU state "likely subjugates a non-EU manufacturer under the jurisdiction of the UPC in that Member State, including with respect to the national parts of the patent in suit in non-UPCA or third countries".

However, it considered that "[t]his burden…does not seem to be unfair" as the rationale for an authorised representative "is to have the distribution channels under the effective control of the relevant authorities by having a representative that has to report to them" and that, in any case, "it is the manufacturer's choice, whom and where to assign this role to".

Osborne Clarke comment

In this case, the court relied on the fact that the Hong Kong manufacturer was required to have an EU-based authorised representative, which happened to be a German company. By using an entity domiciled in a UPC country – over which the court could therefore exercise "universal jurisdiction" – as its anchor, it could then also take jurisdiction over the manufacturer's alleged infringements beyond the UPC territory. While in this decision that was limited to Spain, the court suggested that the principle would also apply to "third countries", that is non-EU states.

Although the court regarded the burden of its expansive approach as not unfair, non-EU manufacturers might disagree about how much choice they really have over the appointment of a representative, given that they must appoint one that is EU-domiciled if they wish to sell into the EU market. However, if they are concerned about UPC litigation, this decision may prompt them to consider whether to appoint one in an EU country that is not participating in the UPC.

Although the case related to hair-styling devices and the court's reasoning was based on the anchor defendant being required by EU's general product safety regulations, the logic seems equally applicable to other sectors where non-EU manufacturers must have an EU-based entity. That could be particularly relevant for medical devices and pharmaceuticals.

Non-EU manufacturers of medical devices are similarly required to have an EU-based authorised representative, while medicines regulations require a marketing authorisation holder established in the EU. Without these EU-domiciled entities, a foreign manufacturer could not supply the EU market, so they would seem to meet the court's "indispensable party" test for an anchor defendant.

If they are domiciled in a UPC country, that could allow non-EU pharmaceutical and medical device companies to be drawn into proceedings for alleged infringements not only in the UPC territory but across the EU and potentially non-EU third countries.