[UPCKat] A Year On From BSH v Electrolux: Anchoring The Long-arm Of The UPC

In Kodak v Fujifilm (UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025 & UPC_CoA_882/202, 2 June 2026), the UPC Court of Appeal has set out detailed guidance on the basis for the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, and how it will exercise that jurisdiction where the validity of the European Patent at issue is contested, dealing separately with EU and Lugano Convention territories, and non-EU/Lugano Convention territories.

A few months earlier, the Court of Appeal referred questions to the CJEU regarding when it is appropriate to base long-arm jurisdiction on an anchor defendant. The UPCKat returns to review the role that anchor defendants have played in decisions of the UPC to date, and what we can expect going forwards.

Genevant v Moderna: Jurisdiction of the UPC based on an anchor defendant

The Genevant v Moderna proceedings were the first in which the UPC accepted jurisdiction based on an anchor defendant in infringement proceedings brought by Genevant against various Moderna entities (UPC_CFI_191/2025 UPC_CFI_192/2025, Hague LD, 23 May 2025).

The Hague LD accepted jurisdiction over non-UPC and non-EU defendants (Moderna Norway, Moderna Biotech Spain and Moderna Poland) based on the presence of an anchor defendant in a UPC member state, in this case Moderna Netherlands – the so-called “spider in the web”.

The Hague LD found that Genevant had sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of establishing international jurisdiction, that the Spanish, Polish and Norwegian Moderna entities allegedly infringed the patent in their home countries jointly with Moderna Netherlands, which opened up the UPC’s jurisdiction over the Spanish, Polish and Norwegian Moderna entities. Separately, but on the basis of largely similar facts, the Hague LD held that the claims against the various Moderna entities could be heard together before it because the defendants had a sufficient “commercial relationship” and the action concerned the same alleged infringement.

Dyson v Dreame: Can an Authorised EU representative serve as an anchor defendant?

Back in August 2025, the Hamburg LD granted a partial preliminary injunction against a number of EU-domiciled Dreame entities to keep Dreame’s infringing hair-styling tools off the market within the UPC territory (UPC_CFI_387/2025, LD Hamburg, 14 August 2025). One of the Dreame defendants, Eurep GmbH, which served as an authorised EU representative for manufacturers based in a non-EU-Member State, was ordered to refrain from providing its services both within the UPC territory and in Spain, pursuant to the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction.

The Hamburg LD also extended the partial preliminary injunction to (non-EU-based) Dreame International (Hongkong) Ltd (“Dreame HK”), the manufacturer and operator of several country specific websites/web shops, including in Germany and Spain, based on its infringing acts in UPC member states. Importantly, the Hamburg LD considered that Eurep GmbH could serve as an anchor defendant for Dreame HK because its role as Dreame HK’s authorised representative in the EU meant that there was a sufficiently close connection between the claims, such that jurisdiction could also be asserted over Dreame HK in relation to its alleged infringing acts in Spain.

Decision of the Court of Appeal in Dyson v Dreame

On 6 March 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal ordered a partial stay of the appeal proceedings in relation to the claims against Eurep GmbH, in its capacity as an authorised EU representative allegedly providing services for infringement, and in relation to the claims against Dreame HK insofar as they relate to alleged infringing acts in Spain (UPC_CoA_789/2025 & UPC_CoA_813/2025). The Court of Appeal considered these issues raised questions of interpretation of EU law and so should be referred to the CJEU.

However, the Court of Appeal’s decision does clarify the following points on the scope of the UPC’s jurisdiction:

• Infringing acts by third-state defendants – Jurisdiction was correctly asserted over Dreame HK in relation to its infringing acts in Germany.

• Domicile – Jurisdiction was correctly asserted over Eurep GmbH by virtue of its domicile in Germany. This meant that it was not necessary to examine the plausibility of any acts committed by Eurep GmbH as an alleged intermediary in Spain for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal made it clear that where jurisdiction is established by way of domicile, the UPC’s jurisdiction is not limited only to acts in UPC member states.

Questions left to be resolved by the CJEU

The questions referred by the Court of Appeal relate to two broad issues:

1. Whether the UPC can assert jurisdiction over acts carried out in an EU Member State that is not party to the UPCA (e.g. Spain) by a third-state defendant (e.g. Dreame HK) either: 

a. by claiming a close connection with an “anchor defendant” that acts as an intermediary providing services for infringement (e.g. Eurep GmbH as authorised EU representative) such that there is a risk of “irreconcilable judgements” from separate proceedings, or

b. by claiming jurisdiction in respect of provisional measures in circumstances where the third-state defendant is offering the same products on a website in an EU Member State that is not party to the UPCA (e.g. Spain) as on websites in UPC member states, where the websites are identical apart from the language (and it also uses the services of an authorised EU representative).

2. Whether it was right to grant a PI against Eurep GmbH in its role as an authorised representative / alleged intermediary.

The answers to these questions will be relevant to other pending UPC cases raising similar jurisdictional issues. We will have to await the CJEU’s decision for these questions to be resolved, and if the timeline for the CJEU referral in BSH v Electrolux is anything to go by (reference was lodged on 24 May 2022 and the judgment was delivered on 25 February 2025), we could be waiting for a while.

Dyson v Dreame (part 2): Lack of a close connection

Dyson subsequently sought another PI against a different (but overlapping) set of Dreame defendants, alleging infringement by Dreame’s newer “Dazzle” product.

In its recent decision (UPC_CFI_2255/2025, 7 April 2026), the Hamburg LD held that UPC-domiciled Dreame Technology Netherlands B.V (“Dreame NL”) could serve as an anchor defendant for Dreame HK in relation to infringement of the Spanish part of the patent. The necessary close connection was established as Dreame NL acted as importer of Dazzle to the Spanish market, while Dreame HK ran an online store in Spain.

However, Dyson’s case against UK-based Cellcom Ltd (“Dreame UK”) was inadmissible due to lack of jurisdiction. Dreame NL could not serve as an anchor defendant for Dreame UK, as the necessary close connection was not established. The Hamburg LD held that, although Dreame NL acted as authorised representative for Dreame HK in Northern Ireland, this was purely in relation to certain EU safety regulations which continue to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework to ensure an open border with the Republic of Ireland. The regulations in place in Northern Ireland are not designed to ensure a certain level of protection within the UK, but “to protect from an abstract risk in case the goods end up in the EU”. Therefore, the Hamburg LD did not consider the regulations to be a reasonably foreseeable basis to open jurisdiction based on the principle of co-defendants. Further, Dreame NL did not import products into the UK – Dreame UK was the exclusive distributor of Dreame products in the UK.

The Hamburg LD further concluded that the injunction against Dreame NL should not extend to the UK because its limited role as authorised representative in Northern Ireland was not a sufficient basis for finding Dreame NL to be a joint tortfeasor or an intermediary under English law, based on the evidence provided. Therefore, the LD granted a PI in the UPC territories and Spain, but not the UK.

Dropping anchor: Dual requirements

The decision in this latest instalment of the Dyson v Dreame proceedings serves as a reminder that while it is possible to extend the long-arm of the UPC to acts of a non-UPC (and even non-EU) defendant that are committed outside the territory of the UPC, this requires both (1) an anchor defendant that must be domiciled in a UPC state, and (2) a sufficiently “close connection” between the third-state defendant and the anchor defendant.

While we await the CJEU’s decision on whether an intermediary service provider such as an authorised representative can serve as an anchor defendant, the UPC Court of Appeal has already made it clear that it will not accept jurisdiction in cases where the connection between defendants is too tenuous.

Originally published on IPKat