On 28 May 2026, the Hamburg Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a procedural order regarding the patent infringement dispute between Dreame and Dyson, confirming that the parties had reached a settlement on all points of contention and that the proceedings for interim measures were terminated.
The patent at issue in this case is EP3119235, owned by Dyson. On 18 March 2026, Dreame filed an application with the Hamburg Regional Division, seeking a preliminary declaration of non-infringement (Claim I) and the issuance of relevant injunctions (Claims II and III) in response to Dyson’s infringement claims regarding its new hair care products based on the aforementioned patent.
On 21 May 2026, the Hamburg Division of the Unified Patent Court held an oral hearing on this case. During the hearing, Dreame and Dyson reached a settlement and signed a settlement agreement on the same day. On 23 May, Dreame submitted a written notice to the court confirming that the parties had settled all claims in the case, and applied for the court to confirm the validity of the settlement, keep the terms of the settlement confidential, and refrain from making a decision on legal costs, in accordance with Article 79 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure. Dyson consented to the above application on 26 May.
In its procedural order, the court ruled as follows: the settlement agreement is confirmed and shall have the same effect as a final judgment and be enforceable; the contents of the agreement are classified as confidential and shall not be made public; Dreame is permitted to withdraw Claim I, whilst Claims II and III shall be treated as part of the settlement and need not be withdrawn separately; no decision on costs shall be made; and the proceedings for interim measures are terminated. As the full text of the settlement agreement is confidential, the specific terms agreed by the parties regarding the dispute over EP3119235 have not yet been made public.
It is worth noting that the settlement between the parties in this case does not affect the preliminary ruling proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) previously initiated by the UPC Court of Appeal. In March 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal held that part of the dispute in this case concerned the interpretation of EU law and that there was currently a lack of clear case law guidance; it therefore decided to stay two parts of the proceedings and refer the matter to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.
The relevant issues primarily concern three aspects:
Firstly, where a third-country undertaking is sued for infringement of a European patent in a non-UPC member state (such as Spain), whilst an EU member state undertaking is sued for providing intermediary services in relation to that infringement, whether a situation of ‘irreconcilable judgments’ may arise, thereby establishing the UPC’s jurisdiction over the relevant infringement under Article 8(1) and Article 71b(2) of the EU Jurisdiction Regulation (Regulation 1215/2012);
Secondly, where a third-country undertaking sells allegedly infringing products in multiple EU Member States (including non-UPC Member States) via a single multilingual website, can the UPC exercise cross-border provisional measures jurisdiction over that undertaking’s infringing acts in non-UPC Member States pursuant to Article 71b(2) of the same Regulation, and does the fact that the undertaking utilises intermediary services in UPC Member States affect the determination of jurisdiction;
Thirdly, as Dreame’s authorised representative in the EU, Eurep bears compliance obligations under the EU Product Safety Regulation and the EU Market Surveillance and Compliance Regulation. Does its legal status constitute an ‘intermediary’ as defined in Article 9(1)(a) of the EU Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive, thereby enabling the court to issue an injunction against it?
The outcome of these issues will directly impact the UPC’s jurisdictional boundaries regarding non-EU enterprises and acts occurring outside the EU; proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union are still ongoing.
Case Background
On 2 May 2025, Dyson filed an application for interim measures with the Hamburg Regional Division of the UPC, alleging that both older and newer models of Dreame hair care products infringed its patents, and requesting the court to prohibit the sale of the relevant products within the UPC’s jurisdiction and in Spain (Case No.: ACT_20368/2025);
On 14 August 2025, the Hamburg Regional Division of the UPC issued a ruling in Case No. UPC_CFI_387/2025, finding that the “Dreame Airstyle” and “ Dreame Pocket” sold in Europe infringed Dyson’s European patent EP 3 119 235, and issued an injunction; the scope of the injunction covered all defendants within the UPC jurisdiction, whilst in the Spanish jurisdiction it applied only to Dreame International and Eurep, with a maximum fine of €250,000 for each act of infringement. However, the court also found that the open-hole fluid outlet used in Dreame’s new products did not constitute the “overlapping structure” defined in the patent claims, and therefore did not support extending the injunction to the new products.
In September 2025, both Dyson and Dreame appealed against the judgment, with case numbers APL_35434/2025 and APL_35749/2025 respectively, concerning patent EP3119235;
On 15 September 2025, Dyson formally brought patent infringement proceedings against ZMI before the Hamburg Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) (case number: ACT_36443/2025);
On 6 March 2026, the Board of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) dismissed Dreame’s appeal, upheld Dyson’s application for interim measures, and extended the scope of the injunction against infringement of European Patent No. EP 3 119 235;
On 7 April 2026, the Hamburg Regional Division of the UPC found that the accused “Dreame Dazzle” product infringed the patent and, accordingly, issued a provisional injunction against the relevant entities of Dreame in the UPC member states and Spain, whilst clarifying that it had no international jurisdiction over the United Kingdom;
On 28 May 2026, the Hamburg Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a procedural order regarding the patent infringement dispute between Dreame and Dyson, confirming that the parties had reached a settlement on all points of contention, and the interim measures proceedings were declared concluded.
Attached: Order
