Short Summary
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application concerning the service of a request for preliminary measures (interim injunction) to a Chinese-domiciled defendant in proceedings related to EP 3 655 341. After formal service under the Hague Service Convention failed due to the Chinese authority's non-processing for over six months, and alternative methods of service were neither factually nor legally possible, the court held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. Service was deemed effective as of the date of the order, with the defendant given fourteen days to file an objection.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by Judge-Rapporteur Tobias Pichlmaier of Panel 1 of the Local Division Munich on December 9, 2024, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 655 341. The applicant, air up group GmbH (Munich, Germany), filed an application for preliminary measures on December 27, 2023, against the defendant, Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. (China). Since the applicant did not request ex parte proceedings, service of the application on the defendant was required under Rule 209.1, 270.2 RoP and Article 32(1)(c) UPCA.
The court's registry attempted both informal and formal service. Informal service by email to Mr. Andy Long (with whom pre-litigation correspondence had occurred) was attempted in February 2024 but remained unanswered. Formal service under Article 5(1) of the Hague Service Convention was initiated, with service documents posted to the competent Chinese authority on May 24, 2024, and received on June 11, 2024. Despite two inquiries from the registry (July 4, 2024 and October 23, 2024), the Chinese authority failed to process the service. On November 18, 2024, the Chinese authority merely indicated that the documents had been submitted to the Supreme Court for further processing.
The applicant requested the court to declare that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, with service deemed effective as of the date of the order, and that the order be published on the court's website.
The court reasoned as follows:
1. Service Requirements: Service was mandatory because the applicant did not seek ex parte provisional measures under Rule 212.1 RoP.
2. Attempt of Service under Rule 274.1 RoP: Service on a Chinese-domiciled defendant must follow the Hague Service Convention under Rule 274.1(a)(ii) RoP. Both formal and informal (voluntary) service are admissible methods.
3. Failure of Service: Neither informal nor formal service could be effected. The court applied Article 15 of the Hague Service Convention, finding that: (a) documents were transmitted on May 24, 2024; (b) more than six months had elapsed since transmission; (c) six months was adequate given the urgency of preliminary measures and the known difficulties with Chinese service authorities (citing experience of European national courts and LD Mannheim, UPC_CFI_332/2024); and (d) every reasonable effort had been made to obtain proof of delivery.
4. Alternative Service under Rule 275.1 RoP: The court held that Rule 275.1 RoP applies even when a foreign authority refuses service seriously and definitively, disagreeing with LD Mannheim's UPC_CFI_332/2024. A serious refusal includes non-processing for more than six months without apparent reason. However, alternative service must be factually and legally possible. In this case, no alternative method was possible: China opposes direct postal service under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, and the court could not determine whether other methods (such as service by public notice) would be compatible with Chinese law under Rule 275.4 RoP. Service at another place was also impossible as no other known address existed. Further delay would be unreasonable given the urgency of preliminary measures.
5. Confirmation of Good Service: While Rule 275.2 RoP's wording refers to unsuccessful attempts at alternative service, the court identified an 'unintended gap' and held that when service under Rule 274 RoP has failed and alternative service is neither possible nor reasonable, the court may order that the unsuccessful attempt under Rule 274 RoP constitutes good service.
Final Order: (1) The steps already taken to bring the request for preliminary injunction to the defendant's attention constitute good service under Rule 275.2 RoP; (2) Service is deemed effective as of the date of the order (Rule 275.3(b) RoP); (3) The defendant must file any objection within fourteen days (Rule 275.3(c) RoP); and (4) The registry shall publish the order, including party names and file number, on the court's website.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in air up group GmbH vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.