UPC_CFI_962/2026 – Dreame v Dyson

Expert Commentary

Settlement confirmed by the Court Facts 1. Dreame filed PI proceedings requesting a provisional declaration of non infringement and an injunction. 2. Parties settled during the oral hearing. 3. Part of the settlement was the withdrawal of the determination of non infringement and no cost decision. 4. The Court was asked to confirm the settlement in accordance with R. 365.2 RoP and to order its confidentiality. The Court 1. Accepts the withdrawal. 2. Confirms the settlement. 3. Orders that in the Register the decision shall be entered. 4. The agreement may be enforced as a final decision. 5. The details of the settlement agreement shall be treated as confidential. Comment 1. The Court states that a member of the public can request access which then has to be decided by the Court. The Court refers to R. 262.6 RoP. In my opinion R. 365.2 RoP is a species of R. 262 RoP and a member of the public cannot request access. If that would be the case it would be unattractive for parties to use R. 365 RoP for settlement purposes. 2. In PI proceedings you cannot ask for a declaration of non infringement. However, you could ask for an order not to state that the product is infringing etc. in other words an order to do or not to do something.

Full Decision Text

Hamburg - Local Division UPC CFI 962/2026 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 28/05/2026 APPLICANT DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED Rooms 1318-19, 13/F, Hollywood Plaza, 610 Nathan Road, Mongkok, 999077 Kowloon, Hong Kong, PR China Represented by Christian Stoll DEFENDANTS Dyson Technology Limited Tetbury Hill - SN16 0RP - Malmesbury, Wiltshire - GB Represented by Dr. Constanze Krenz PATENT AT ISSUE Patent no. Proprietor/s EP3119235 Dyson Technology Limited SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS Application for provisional measures: provisional declaration of non-infringement and injunction in connection with the allegation of patent infringement PANEL Panel of the Local Division in Hamburg DECIDING JUDGES This order has been issued by the presiding judge Sabine Klepsch, the legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Dr. Stefan Schilling and the legally qualified judge Stefan Johansson. ORAL HEARING 21.05.2026, 10:00 h 2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. With its application dated 18 March 2026, the Applicant requested provisional measures, including a provisional declaration of non-infringement and an injunction, in connection with the Defendant's allegations of patent infringement relating to new haircare appliances offered or sold by the applicant. 2. The oral hearing was conducted on 21 May 2026. In the oral hearing the parties negotiated a settlement of the case and related issues. After the parties had informed the Court that a settlement was drafted and ready to be signed, the oral hearing was postponed. 3. On 23 May 2026 the Applicant formally informed the Court that the parties have signed a settlement agreement with respect to all claims asserted by the Applicant with the request for provisional measures. As part of the settlement, only the Applicant’s request I. (determination for non-infringement) shall be withdrawn, and no cost-decision shall be made between the parties. Requests II. and III. shall not be withdrawn but are part of the settlement. 4. The Applicant further request that the non-redacted version of the settlement agreement dated 21 May 2026 between the parties shall be treated confidential in accordance with R. 365.2 RoP and shall not be published or otherwise made available to the public. 5. The Defendant submitted its formal consent on 26 May 2026. REQUESTS BY THE PARTIES 6. The Applicant requests, I. The Court shall confirm the settlement between the parties and as detailed in Exhibit HL 20 by decision of the Court in accordance with Art. 79 UPCA, R. 365.1 RoP and the decision may be enforced as final decision of the Court. II. The Plaintiff requests in accordance with R. 365.2 RoP that the details of the settlement are confidential. III. The Plaintiff requests that in accordance with the settlement agreement no cost decision shall be made. IV. The Court shall order in accordance with R. 262.2, 365,2 RoP a) that the details of the settlement agreement dated 21 May 2026 between the parties shall be treated confidential; and b) the non-redacted copy of the settlement agreement dated 21 May 2026 between the parties shall not be published or otherwise made available to the public. V. The Applicant requests that in accordance with the settlement agreement no cost decision shall be made. VI. The Applicant withdraws its request I. for provisional measures dated 18 March 2026 and the Court shall allow the withdrawal. VII. The Applicant requests that the Court closes the proceeding. VIII. The Applicant requests that in accordance with the settlement agreement no cost decision shall be made. 3 7. The Defendant referred to Applicant’s application according to R. 365 RoP of May 23, 2026, to request confirmation of the settlement as detailed in Exhibit HL 20 and the application according to R. 265 RoP of May 23, 2026, to withdraw the application for provisional measures and expressed its consent to both aforementioned applications. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER 8. If the parties have settled their action, the court may confirm the settlement in accordance with Art. 79 UPCA in conjunction with R. 365.1 RoP at the request of the parties. A settlement is a procedural act that has the effect of terminating legal proceedings before the UPC, either completely or in part. Pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP a decision of the Court confirming a settlement may be enforced as a final decision of the Court. 9. The details of the settlement may be treated as confidential at the request of the parties in accordance with R. 365.2 RoP. This confidentiality is ensured by the registry in accordance with the aforementioned provision as pursuant to R. 365.3 RoP, the decision confirming the settlement shall be entered in the register subject to the aforementioned decision according to R. 365.2 RoP. A (further) order by the court is only to be made in accordance with R. 262.6 RoP in case a member of the public requests access to the case file in accordance with R. 262.3 RoP. 10. As the parties unanimously confirmed that based on their agreement no cost-decision shall be made between the parties, the judge-rapporteur refers the decision on to the panel pursuant to R. 102.1 RoP. Thus, the position on cost reimbursement can be reflected in the decision pursuant to R. 365.4 RoP. 11. The request for withdrawal of the remaining request I. can be granted, which then terminates the action in its entirety. The decision follows the unanimous requests of the parties. Insofar as Rule 265.2 (c) RoP requires a decision on costs in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5 RoP, the parties also in this respect did not request any cost decision due to the agreement reached between them. ORDER 1. It is hereby confirmed that the parties have concluded the settlement agreement as detailed in Exhibit HL 20 and attached to this decision. 2. The details of the settlement agreement concluded between the parties shall be treated as confidential, R. 365.2 RoP. 3. Subject to item 2., this decision shall be entered in the register, R. 365.3 RoP. 4. The decision may be enforced as final decision of the Court. 5. The withdrawal of the remaining application for provisional measures is permitted, R. 265.2 RoP. 6. The proceedings for provisional measures are declared closed. 7. It is confirmed that no cost decision is required with respect to the settlement and the withdrawal. 8. This decision shall be entered in the register, R. 265.2 b RoP. 4 INFORMATION ON THE APPEAL Both parties may appeal against this order within 15 days of its notification, Art. 73 (2) lit. a), Art. 79 UPCA, R. 220.1(c), 224.2(b) RoP. INFORMATION ON THE ENFORCEMENT Pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP a decision of the Court confirming a settlement may be enforced as a final decision of the Court. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE SUB-REGISTRY The case can be closed in the CMS in its entirety after the reimbursement of the court fees. SIGNATURES Presiding judge Sabine Klepsch Judge rapporteur Dr. Stefan Schilling Legally qualified judge Stefan Johansson For the sub-registry Hogan Lovells International LLP Dreame International (Hong Kong) Ltd. ./. Dyson Technology Limited Unified Patent Court UPC CFI 962/2026 Brief of 22 May 2026 Exhibit HL 20

Key Holdings

• The UPC confirms settlement agreements and withdrawals of proceedings.
• Settlement agreements confirmed by the Court are enforceable as final decisions.
• Details of confirmed settlement agreements can be treated as confidential.
• There is a debate regarding public access to settlement details under R. 365.2 RoP versus R. 262.6 RoP.
• Declarations of non-infringement are not available in provisional measures (PI) proceedings, but orders to do or not to do something are.

Tags

• Settlement
• Withdrawal
• Confidentiality
• Interim Measures
• Rules of Procedure

Related Cases

• UPC_CFI_173/2024; 424/2024 – Nera v Xiaomi
• UPC_CFI_58/2024 – Lionra v Cisco
• UPC CFI 278/2023 – AGFA NV v Gucci
• App_55164/2024 UPC_CFI_525/2024 – Easee vs Visibly
• UPC_CFI_151/2024_Ballinno_Sec – Ballinno v UEFA (Local Division)