The Unified Patent Court's first-ever referral to the CJEU (Cour de justice de l'Union européenne). epi - Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office
🎙️ New episode of Insight EPI: The UPC's First-Ever Referral to the CJEU Host Bart van Wezenbeek and Tilman Pfrang dig into a landmark Unified Patent Court Court of Appeal case — the first time the UPC has referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. At the centre of it: Dyson v. Dream, a dispute over an allegedly infringing handheld hair styling device 1. ⚙️ The Chinese manufacturer vs. the EU contact point. Dreame, the Chinese company behind the products, was sued alongside Eurep, its Germany-based "authorised representative" — required under EU product-safety rules for any non-EU manufacturer selling into Europe. The twist: Eurep never actually performed any infringing acts, it merely fulfilled a regulatory function. 🌍 Long-arm jurisdiction meets a genuine gap in the case law. The Hamburg local division granted a preliminary injunction covering both the unitary patent and Spain's national designation — even though Spain doesn't participate in the UPC. Building on the CJEU's BSH ruling, the Court of Appeal had to ask: can a merely regulatory "contact point," with no real link to the infringement, serve as an anchor defendant to establish jurisdiction over a non-UPC EU state? ❓ Why it matters for everyone selling into Europe. If the answer is yes, virtually any non-EU company with an EU regulatory representative could face UPC jurisdiction extending across the whole EU — a permanent jurisdictional foothold. If no, the UPC's reach stays firmly tied to genuine infringing conduct. ⚖️ Meanwhile, on the merits: the Court of Appeal still ruled on the unitary patent infringement itself — including Dyson's request to extend the injunction to Dream's newly launched products. 🔗 The bigger picture: Shortly after, the Court of Appeal's Fujifilm v. Kodak decision confirmed — for the first time expressly — the UPC's international jurisdiction over non-UPC validations, building directly on BSH. Dyson asks how far that jurisdiction reaches; Fujifilm explains how it's exercised. Two strands of the same emerging doctrine. The CJEU's answer will help define the next stage of the UPC's international reach — well worth watching. 👉 Listen now via epi-learning.org or your favourite streaming platform or here https://lnkd.in/dbBhET36. Full Text of the referral: https://lnkd.in/dwX4xvfj #epi #UPC #PatentLaw #IntellectualProperty #Jurisdiction #CJEU #PatentAttorneys
