REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

UPC emphasises importance of formal service

​
Darren Smyth
​
April 22, 2024
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Recent cases
Service of actions
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Daedalus Prime v. Xiaomi and others

Order of 18 April 2024 ORD_20986/2024[1]

Daedalus Prime LLC filed a patent infringement action based on EP2792100 at the UPC local division in Hamburg. While some of the named defendants were located in EU countries participating in the UPC (Germany and Netherlands), others were located in China and Taiwan.

The claimant requested that service on the defendants located in China and Taiwan should be effected via service on their respective subsidiaries in Germany.

The Hamburg division held that this is impermissible – the rules on service on defendants outside the territory of the UPC Agreement (Rules 273 and 274 RoP) require at least a first attempt of service in accordance with Rule 274.1 (a) (ii) and (iii) RoP before service by other means can be contemplated.

The Hamburg division agreed with a prior decision from the Mannheim local division (UPC_CFI_223/2023 [2]) that service must first be attempted as specified in Rule 274. For China this would mean service under the Hague Service Convention, while for Taiwan, who is not party to that Convention, service should be attempted through diplomatic or consular channels from the contracting member state in which the sub-registry of the relevant division is established (namely, Germany).

The Court reiterated that formal service on the defendant is an internationally recognised principle and not a superfluous formality. The UPC is bound by international agreements binding the contracting member states, including the Hague Service Convention, and the UPC cannot seek to circumvent these provisions by permitting service on a defendant outside the jurisdiction through a local office or subsidiary.

The claimant was therefore ordered to submit documents for service, including the necessary translations into Chinese, to the Hamburg Local Division.

[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/667

[2] Reported here https://eip.com//knowledge_hub/article/service_on_defendants_outside_the_jurisdiction/

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

No language change at Central Division
08 October 2026
Proceedings before the UPC Central Division must be conducted in the language in which the patent was granted. There is no legal basis to change that language. In a revocation action concerning a German-language patent, the Paris Central Division rejected a request to switch the language of proceedings to English, and also rejected a subsidiary request to allow written submissions in English and hold the hearing in English, holding that Article 49(6) UPCA permits no derogation and reflects a deliberate legislative choice.
​
Criteria for obtaining an order to produce evidence under Rule 190
07 October 2026
This appeal judgment clarifies that Rule 190 orders to produce evidence require three cumulative conditions: specificity, necessity and proportionality, and cannot be used for fishing expeditions. The Court of Appeal confirmed that first instance judges enjoy a broad margin of discretion when assessing such requests, and upheld the order requiring production of two fabric samples for ballistic testing. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.
​
Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
​