Patent case: Dyson Technology Limited v. Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB, UPC

While the function of a structural element must be considered when interpreting a claim feature relating to such an element, the interpretation must likewise take into account the physical and spatial configuration of the elements as taught by the patent. The requirement to limit an injunction to the specific infringing acts which the infringer has committed cannot be derived from Art. 62(1) and Art. 25(a) UPCA. As a general rule, the fact that a party has infringed the patent is sufficient to establish a risk of further infringement through other acts of use, including infringing acts which it had not previously committed.

The UPC's first-ever referral to the CJEU could reshape the Court's international reach. Discover what the landmark Dyson v. Dreame decision means for cross-border patent enforcement in our full case summary: Kluwer IP Law

Case date: 06 March 2026
Case number: CoA_789/2025, CoA_813/2025, APL_35434/2025, APL_35749/2025
Court: UPC Court of Appeal, Luxembourg