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

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​