Developing Story
Dyson vs. Dreame – UPC Patent Enforcement (Hair Styling Devices)
Dyson has obtained at least two preliminary injunctions against Chinese manufacturer Dreame at the UPC Hamburg Local Division covering hair styling devices sold across Europe. The case is a high-profile example of UPC enforcement being used strategically against Chinese consumer electronics competitors and will continue to generate significant rulings.
Importance: 72%Confidence: 85%Mentions: 1Updated: April 12, 2026
## Overview
Dyson has secured multiple preliminary injunctions against Chinese manufacturer Dreame Technology at the UPC Hamburg Local Division, prohibiting distribution of Dreame's hair styling devices across UPC territory and Spain. The dispute centers on hair-styler design and technology patents and represents one of the more active ongoing enforcement campaigns at the nascent Unified Patent Court.
## Key Facts
- **First PI**: Issued August 2024 covering older versions of Dreame AirStyle and Dreame Pocket models.
- **Second PI**: Issued 2025 at Hamburg Local Division under presiding judge Sabine Klepsch, extending prohibition to additional or updated models.
- **Geographic scope**: UPC territory (17+ EU member states) plus Spain via separate national proceedings.
- **Products at issue**: Dreame AirStyle and Dreame Pocket hair styling devices.
- **Luxembourg Court of Appeal**: Referenced in proceedings, indicating Dreame has or may challenge the injunctions at appellate level.
## Strategic Significance
### For IP Practitioners
- Illustrates the UPC's effectiveness as a pan-European enforcement tool for consumer goods patents.
- Hamburg Local Division under Judge Klepsch emerging as an aggressive PI-granting venue—venue selection matters.
- Sequential PIs against updated product versions is a litigation strategy Dyson is deploying to track design-arounds.
### For Entrepreneurs/Companies
- Chinese manufacturers expanding into European consumer electronics markets face significant UPC exposure.
- A single UPC PI can effectively block an entire EU market, raising the stakes of patent clearance for product launches.
- Dreame's experience signals that design-arounds that preserve core functionality may not be sufficient to escape injunctive relief.
## Parties
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| Dyson | Patentee/Claimant |
| Dreame Technology | Defendant/Chinese manufacturer |
| UPC Hamburg Local Division | Court |
| Judge Sabine Klepsch | Presiding judge |
## Watch Points
- Whether the UPC Court of Appeal overturns either PI on appeal.
- Whether Dreame launches a successful invalidity counterclaim.
- Whether the dispute expands to additional product lines.
- Dyson's parallel enforcement in non-UPC jurisdictions (UK, US).