Referral C-196/26 (Dreame International, 11 Mar 2026)

[Unofficial translation from French]

1. Must Article 8(1), read in conjunction with Article 71b(2), of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings before a common court within the meaning of Article 71a(2) of that Regulation, a situation in which a first company established in a third State is accused of infringing the national part of a European patent in force in a Member State of the Union which is not a party to the instrument establishing the common court, and in which a second company established in a Member State of the Union which is a party to the instrument establishing the common court is accused of being an intermediary whose services are used by the first company for the acts of infringement committed in the Member State of the Union which is not a party to the instrument establishing the common court, is liable to lead to “irreconcilable solutions” if the cases were to be decided separately, within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012?

2. Must the second subparagraph of Article 71b(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that a common court has jurisdiction to hear an application for provisional measures against a company established in a third State which is accused of infringing a European patent in force both in a Member State of the Union which is not a party to the instrument establishing the common court and in all or part of the Member States of the Union which are parties to that instrument, by offering the same products in all those Member States of the Union via internet sites which are identical, except for the language of the site?


3. Does the fact that the company uses the services of a company established in a Member State of the Union which is a party to the instrument establishing the common court in order to commit an act of infringement constitute a relevant circumstance for the purpose of answering the second question?


4. Does Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48, or any other provision of Union law, preclude case-law of a national court or a common court according to which a preliminary injunction aimed at preventing or prohibiting the infringement of a patent by a third party, consisting in placing on the market products to which Regulation 2023/988 and Regulation 2019/1020 apply, may be issued against an authorised representative (mandataire) which carries out the tasks provided for by those Regulations on behalf of that third party?