For the first time since the start of operations of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), on 6 March 2026  the Court of Appeal (CoA) of the UPC has referred four questions of law to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Although the UPC is not an institution of the European Union, it does apply Union law, in particular the so-called Recast Brussels Regulation (Regulation (EU) 1215/2012), for the purpose of determining if it has jurisdiction to hear cases, and it may seek clarification from the CJEU, to ensure the correct application and uniform interpretation of Union law.

The referral arose in a dispute opposing Dyson, a British manufacturer of hair care appliances, to Dreame International, a Hong-Kong-based company, and Eurep, a German company acting as authorised representative of Dreame International in the European Union (EU).

Dyson accused Dreame International and Eurep of infringement of its European patent EP 3 119 235 in several EU countries that are members of the UPC as well as in Spain, which is in the EU but is not part of the UPC.

At first instance before the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC, Dyson obtained a preliminary injunction requiring Dreame International to refrain from infringing the patent within the UPC territory and ordering Eurep to stop providing services for infringing the patent in the UPC territory as well as in Spain.

The preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in regard to Spain was issued according to the so-called long-arm jurisdiction of the UPC, i.e., its power to award provisional measures concerning a State that is not party to the UPC.

Dyson, Dreame and Eurep all appealed against the order of the Hamburg Local Division.

The CoA decided to stay the appeal proceedings only insofar as they concern the action against Dreame International, to the extent that the action concerns Spain only, and the action against Eurep altogether, because it considered that these actions raise important questions concerning the interpretation of EU law.

With its first question, the CoA of the UPC essentially asked the CJEU  whether the UPC can derive its jurisdiction to hear the action against Dreame International for the territory of Spain from its jurisdiction concerning Eurep, which is domiciled in a member State of the EU and of the UPC, namely Germany.

Eurep may be seen as an “anchor defendant” which, being domiciled in an EU member State, may be sued before the UPC. Since Eurep provides services that are used by a company domiciled outside of the Union to allegedly infringe a patent in a State of the Union, i.e., Spain, Dreame International can be drawn, as a co-defendant, in the action concerning Eurep.

However – and this seems the real core of the issue raised by the CoA – this is only possible if dealing with the actions of Eurep and Dreame International in separate actions (rather than in the same action before the UPC) could lead to “irreconcilable judgements”.

With the second and third questions, the CoA essentially asked whether the UPC has jurisdiction in relation to cross-border provisional measures, i.e., measures extending outside the territory of the UPC (in this case, Spain), where the measures are intended to prevent infringement committed by offering the same products in UPC member States and in EU States not participating in the UPC through websites that are identical, except for the languages.

With the fourth question the  COA asked whether the Enforcement Directive or any other provision of Union law preclude case-law of a national or common court under which an interlocutory injunction aimed at preventing or prohibiting infringement of a patent by a third party by placing products on the market may be granted against an authorised representative that performs the tasks on behalf of the third party .

The order of the CoA and the text of the questions may be found here.