Simon Michels
4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal concerning provisional measures in a dispute over hair care appliances. The court upheld the injunction against Dreame's products but clarified key legal principles regarding claim construction and the scope of injunctive relief. Specifically, it ruled that infringement risk extends beyond previously committed acts, strengthening the basis for broad interim protection.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson successfully appealed a provisional measures decision against Dreame's hair styling products before the UPC Court of Appeal. The court upheld the injunction and extended its scope to cover newer versions of Dreame's curling attachments, confirming that infringement is sufficient grounds for preventing future unauthorized use. This ruling provides clarity on how courts interpret claim features in relation to physical configurations and reinforces the broad application of provisional measures.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This Court of Appeal decision addresses a complex provisional measures application concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought an injunction against Dreame International and Eurep for infringing EP 3 119 235 with its multi-functional hairdryers. While the court granted the requested provisional measures within the UPC Territory, it simultaneously referred key jurisdictional questions regarding Spain and the role of the authorized representative (Eurep) to the CJEU. This highlights the Court's careful balancing act between immediate injunctive relief and ensuring legal certainty across different EU jurisdictions.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited and Eurep GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involves a complex dispute over provisional measures concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought to prevent infringement by Dreame International and Eurep, who marketed products through websites. The court found jurisdictional questions regarding the role of EU-based intermediaries (Eurep) in facilitating third-state infringement were too complex for it to resolve alone. Consequently, the Court referred key legal questions to the CJEU while simultaneously issuing provisional measures against certain defendants within the UPC Territory.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.