Unconventional Service: igus v. Whale Technology

No items found.
​
August 29, 2025

UPC_CFI_318/2025, decision of 5 August 2025 (ORD_34299/2025)[1]

In a default judgment issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. was found to have infringed European Patent EP3912243, held by igus GmbH.

Interestingly, service of the statement of claim was carried out on the same day that the action was filed with the UPC via hand delivery to an employee of Whale Technology by a bailiff at a trade fair.

Allowing service of the statement of claim at a trade fair is consistent with an earlier decision from the Düsseldorf LD, which established the principle that a trade fair stand where deliveries are advertised may be considered to be a temporary place of business within the UPC member states of a company domiciled outside the UPC member states[2]. However, in the time since that earlier decision, the UPC Court of Appeal has stated, albeit in a slightly different context, that the rules relied upon by the Düsseldorf LD to justify the principle that a trade fair stand may be considered a temporary place of business do not apply to companies domiciled outside the UPC member states[3].

Furthermore, the UPC Rules of Procedure state that service of the statement of claim is carried out by the UPC Registry[4], but given that the statement of claim was done on the same day as it was filed with the UPC, it seems safe to assume that the bailiff was arranged by the claimant itself.

Service in this manner at trade fairs is standard practice in many national jurisdictions, including in Germany, but it is not clear from the present decision why the Düsseldorf LD considered that the location or method of service used in this case was appropriate in the context of the UPC Rules of Procedure. As the UPC Court of Appeal has stated "The UPC has its own service provisions… National laws of a Contracting Member State do not take primacy. There is no reason why the UPC should follow the practice of some German courts… since the UPC has its own procedural rules and furthermore the practice of some German courts does not create a precedent"[5].

Whale Technology failed to respond to the statement of claim within the prescribed three-month period beginning on the date of the service. As a result, after considering the facts put forward by igus to justify the remedies sought, the Düsseldorf LD gave a decision by default.

The decision highlights the balance of the claimant's interest in obtaining a final decision in a reasonable timeframe with the defendant's interest in having sufficient notice and time to enter a defence to the claim. Indeed, the rules on service of documents are in place to ensure that the court can ensure that the defendant's rights to present a defence have been respected before delivering a default judgement.

It is unlikely that this decision will be appealed, so it may be some time until the Court of Appeal weighs in on this line of case law being established by the Düsseldorf LD. Until then, the Düsseldorf LD may remain an attractive forum for claimants who are interested in unconventional means of service.

[1] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/136896

[2] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/854, M-A-S Maschinen- un Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH, UPC_CFI_316/2024, ORD_36068/2024 of 17 June 2024, see Reasons for the order: "[A temporary place of business may be] a trade fair stand if – as is usually the case – at least deliveries are also advertised there".

[3] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/988, Panasonic v. Xioami, UPC_CoA_86/2024, order dated 5 August 2024, see para. 40: "R.271.5(a) RoP does not apply to [companies with registered offices outside the Contracting Member States and outside the EU]".

[4] For service within the UPC member states, Rule 271.4: "the Registry shall serve the Statement of claim on the defendant", and outside the UPC member states Rule 274.1: "it shall be so served by the Registry".

[5] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/960, NEC v. TCL, UPC_CoA_69/2024, order of 29 July 2024. See paragraph 38.

The Latest Thought Leadership pieces in the Content Hub

UPC Considers but does not decide exhaustion of rights in relation to consumables
October 30, 2025
Brita v. Aquashield UPC CFI 248/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 22 August 2025[1] UPC CFI 564/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 16 October 2025[2] Brita sued Aquashield and others for infringement of...
UPC Infringement Actions: Is Speed Meeting Expectations?
September 23, 2025
The Unified Patent Court promised simplified and faster patent litigation across Europe. Two years in, we look at whether it’s delivering on that promise. For patent holders and defendants alike, the duration of infringement actions can significantly impact market strategies, investment decisions, and competitive positioning. In this article, we set out an in-depth analysis of how the court’s procedural rules are shaping the pace of litigation. By examining key milestones—from the filing of an infringement action to the issuance of a final judgment—we assess whether the UPC is delivering on its promise of efficiency.
Stay in the Know

The Patent Strategist

Get expert insights and the top patent stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Heading
This is some text inside of a div block.
This is some text inside of a div block.

Latest Insights

Showing 0 of 100
The UPC After Three Years: From Experiment to Enforcement Forum
15 July 2026
1,282 cases filed at the UPC in three years: infringement actions have surged while revocation filings stayed flat, easing fears the Court would become a European patent graveyard.
Choosing your SEP battleground: UPC, Germany or UK?
07 June 2026
Choosing the right venue for SEP litigation can significantly influence the outcome of FRAND disputes. This article compares the UPC, German and UK courts, examining their approaches to injunctions, FRAND defences, rate-setting and enforcement. It highlights the strategic advantages of each jurisdiction and explains why many SEP owners are increasingly turning to the UK and UPC as part of their European enforcement strategy.
Synthetic Lethality & AI: IP Strategy in Oncology
26 May 2026
This article explores the resurgence of synthetic lethality in precision oncology, highlighting how AI and machine learning are accelerating the discovery of new therapeutic targets. It also examines growing clinical activity, investment, and the evolving intellectual property challenges shaping this emerging field.
Inside the Visser AI Launch Party
20 May 2026
EIP has officially launched Visser AI®, our hybrid intelligence service for patent drafting and prosecution. Watch the launch film from our event at The Boundary in Shoreditch, and discover how our team of European and US patent attorneys — working with the Patently AI platform , delivers faster, lower-cost work at the EPO, USPTO and beyond.
Protecting Your Startup: Five Intellectual Property Mistakes to Avoid
20 May 2026
Early‑stage startups often focus on product development and fundraising, but overlooking intellectual property (IP) can seriously damage long‑term value. This article explores five common IP mistakes startups make, with a particular focus on patents. It covers the risks of filing patents without professional advice, making public disclosures too early, failing to put enforceable contracts in place with third parties, misunderstanding what patent rights actually provide, and neglecting to develop a clear IP strategy. By highlighting these pitfalls and offering practical guidance, the article helps startups protect their innovations, strengthen their commercial position, and improve their prospects with investors.
Technology, Patents, and Sport
13 May 2026
VAR, goal-line tech, AI 3D player avatars, wearable trackers, the technology reshaping the 2026 World Cup and elite sport rests on a patent system that makes the R&D investment behind it worth taking.
Patents or Trade Secrets? When to Patent in Deep Tech Innovation
11 May 2026
Deep tech companies face unique IP challenges due to long development cycles, high upfront investment, and complex technologies that combine products and processes. This article explores when patents, trade secrets, or a combination of both offer the strongest protection. It explains how factors such as detectability, reverse engineering risk, disclosure to third parties, and employee mobility should shape IP strategy decisions. While patents are often best suited to externally visible or licensable technologies, trade secrets can be highly effective for internal processes and know‑how that deliver performance or cost advantages.
Is Your AI Conversation Privileged?
08 May 2026
Recent US court decisions have, for the first time, tested whether conversations with AI tools can be protected by legal privilege. In United States v. Heppner, a court held that documents generated by a defendant using a public AI platform were not protected by attorney‑client privilege, largely because the AI was not used within a lawyer‑directed relationship and the platform’s terms allowed data retention and disclosure. By contrast, in Warner v. Gilbarco, another court found that AI‑assisted materials created by a self‑represented litigant were protected under the work‑product doctrine, which has a more forgiving standard for waiver.
The evolution of nucleic acid sequencing and what it means for Genomics and IP
27 April 2026
This article outlines the evolution of nucleic acid sequencing, from early Sanger methods to next‑generation and long‑read technologies. The journey from deciphering individual DNA strands to sequencing entire genomes in hours represents one of biotechnology's most impressive transformations. The first human genome, completed through the Human Genome Project, took around 13 years to sequence and cost billions of dollars, whereas modern sequencing methods can now deliver a genome in hours for a few hundred dollars. For those interested in patents and life sciences, understanding the technical evolution of sequencing methods offers insights into how fundamental scientific advances translate into valuable patent portfolios.
World IP Day: The big ideas shaping IP's fastest-moving fields
24 April 2026
For World IP Day, we asked experts of EIP’s five growth areas: Uniphy, Ampliphy, Stratiphy, Codiphy and Quantiphy, to share a quick insight on innovation, IP trends, and what excites them about the future. Each responded to a single, focused question reflecting the role their team plays across EIP.
Meet the EIP team heading to INTA 2026 in London
23 April 2026
INTA's Annual Meeting is coming to London. From 2–6 May 2026, the ExCeL will host more than 10,000 trade mark and IP professionals from over 100 jurisdictions — five days of sessions, side events, and the kind of corridor conversations that turn into lasting working relationships.
National offices report increases in national patent applications throughout Europe: Is the EPO no longer “killing” the national offices?
27 March 2026
National patent offices across Europe have reported a marked increase in patent filings in 2025, breaking with a long‑standing downward trend. Data from Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Austria, Spain and Norway point to growing activity driven by digital technologies, electrification and increased university participation. At the same time, offices report a rise in self‑drafted and AI‑assisted applications, which may lower barriers to entry but also raise concerns about application quality and examination efficiency.
Make your bio(pharma) IP investment ready
22 March 2026
This recap of our LinkedIn Live series focuses on helping (bio)pharma businesses make their IP investment‑ready. Across three sessions, experts will discuss building resilient IP portfolios, making strategic IP decisions ahead of funding rounds, and what the evolving 2026 (bio)pharma landscape means for long‑term IP strategy.
Are professional guidelines making Patent Attorneys too cautious on AI?
19 February 2026
As AI use accelerates in patent practice, many European patent attorneys remain cautious due to professional AI guidelines from the epi. This article argues those guidelines are not a barrier, but a baseline for responsible use.
Beyond CRISPR: Precision to Platform
23 January 2026
Gene editing is entering a new phase, moving beyond CRISPR-Cas9’s breakthrough but costly, bespoke therapies toward more precise and scalable platforms. While CRISPR-based treatments like Casgevy have proven clinical success, they remain expensive and entangled in ongoing patent disputes over foundational IP. Next-generation tools such as base editing and prime editing avoid double-strand DNA breaks, enabling more accurate corrections and broader therapeutic potential. The field’s focus is now shifting to disease-agnostic platforms that can be adapted across many conditions, improving access and efficiency.