Recently, the Hamburg Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a procedural ruling in the patent infringement case between Dyson and Qimi (Case No.: UPC_CFI_851/2025), provisionally rejecting Qimi’s application to stay the proceedings. In his ruling, Reporting Judge Stefan Schilling made it clear that the suspension of proceedings is an exception rather than the rule, and that the conditions for suspension are not met at this stage; the court will therefore proceed with the case and schedule an oral hearing for the end of 2026.
ZMI put forward two grounds for suspension in this case:
Firstly, to await a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on a legal question already referred by the UPC Court of Appeal, concerning ‘anchoring the defendant’ and international jurisdiction over interim measures, which ZMI believes has implications for Defendant 6, who is based in the UK;
Second, to await the outcome of the opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO). Truescope stated that the EPO has initiated an accelerated opposition procedure, with a rapid decision expected within seven months, and argued that the patent in question may be revoked on grounds of insufficient disclosure, claim scope exceeding the invention, and lack of novelty and inventive step.
Dyson responded by pointing out that it had not yet completed its defence in the EPO opposition proceedings, and therefore the conditions for a “rapid decision” had not been met; it also emphasised that the issue of referral to the CJEU concerned only the liability of intermediaries and jurisdiction, and was unrelated to the grounds for infringement in this case, so the proceedings should not be stayed in their entirety.
Regarding the EPO opposition proceedings, the judge considered that the deadline for responding to the opposition had not yet expired and that the EPO had not set a hearing date; consequently, it could not be anticipated that the Board of Appeal’s decision would be issued swiftly, either before or shortly after the UPC oral hearing date (late 2026). Furthermore, the issue of patent validity could be assessed by the court itself without relying on the EPO’s decision.
Regarding the referral to the CJEU, the judge fully endorsed Dyson’s position, holding that the issues referred by the Court of Appeal relate solely to whether the intermediary constitutes an ‘anchor defendant’ and to international jurisdiction over interim measures; these issues are irrelevant to the liability of the defendants as direct infringers. Even if a partial stay might apply to certain defendants in the future, this is currently insufficient to justify a stay of the entire proceedings.
The judge emphasised that, according to established case law of the UPC Court of Appeal, the suspension of proceedings is the exception rather than the rule. The interpretation of Article 33(10) of the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court and Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure must be consistent with the fundamental right of the parties to obtain effective relief within a reasonable time. The core objective of the UPC is efficient and prompt adjudication, ensuring that the final oral hearing is usually held within one year. In this case, the suspension of proceedings is inconsistent with this objective.
This case forms part of a series of patent disputes between Dyson and ZMI, concerning the patent EP3119235 (hand-held hair styling appliance). Previously, in response to an application for interim measures initiated by Dyson, the Hamburg Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction on 14 August 2025, finding that ZMI’s older product infringed the patent; this injunction became the first preliminary injunction issued by the UPC to cover Spain.
Scan the QR code to access the full text of the ruling
