UPC emphasises importance of formal service

​
Darren Smyth
​
April 22, 2024
#
UPC
#
Recent cases
#
Service of actions
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

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​