Short Summary
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an infringement action on December 16, 2024 against two defendants concerning European Patent EP 4 240 194, alleging that products Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX (and their Plus, Pro, and Pro Max variants) infringed the patent. While service was successfully completed against the Hong Kong defendant on May 29, 2025, service against the Shenzhen defendant failed twice because the Chinese central authority rejected the documents due to the naming convention used for Hong Kong. The Milan Local Division addressed whether Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention applies in the UPC system, concluding that it is entirely applicable regardless of any additional requirements for service within each Member State.
Detailed Summary
Cardo Systems, Ltd., the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 240 194, filed an infringement action on December 16, 2024 before the Milan Local Division of the Court of First Instance against two defendants: Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited (domiciled in Hong Kong) and Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. (domiciled in Shenzhen, China). Cardo alleged that the defendants' products, identified as Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX, along with their Plus, Pro, and Pro Max variants, fell within the scope of protection of EP 194. The proceedings were conducted in English, with Judge Alima Zana serving as the deciding judge rapporteur.
The procedural dispute centered on the service of process against the Shenzhen defendant. Service against the Hong Kong defendant was successfully completed on the second attempt on May 29, 2025. However, service against the Shenzhen defendant failed on two occasions—January 16, 2025 and May 26, 2025—because the Chinese central authority rejected the documents with the explanation that the full name 'Hong Kong, China' must be used whenever referring to Hong Kong in documents. The court was required to determine the applicable legal framework for service on a defendant domiciled in China, a non-EU jurisdiction, and specifically whether Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention applies within the UPC system.
& Analysis
The Milan Local Division applied Rules 273, 274, and 276 of the Rules of Procedure, the Hague Service Convention, and existing UPC case law (referencing decisions from the Mannheim Local Division of July 31, 2024, CFI 330/2024, and the Court of Appeal of July 29, 2024, UPC_CoA_69-70/2024). The court noted that Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, which governs service between EU Member States, does not apply to defendants domiciled outside the Contracting Member States, meaning the conditions for applying Rule 274.1(a)(i) RoP were not met. Instead, the Hague Service Convention applied under Rule 274.1(a)(ii) RoP because the Shenzhen defendant has its registered office in China. The court reasoned that Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention is entirely applicable in the UPC system, regardless of any additional requirements for service within each Member State. This conclusion rested on two grounds: first, the service system in the UPC is uniform; and second, the participating Member States in the UPC system have indirectly adopted the rules laid down in the Hague Service Convention by adopting the Rules of Procedure, without exception, at least with regard to notifications ordered by UPC Courts. The court emphasized that the UPC has its own service provisions alongside Regulation 2020/1784 and the Hague Convention, and that national laws of a Contracting Member State do not take primacy.
Final Order & Ruling
The court concluded that the Milan Local Division had exhausted the options available under Rules 270-274 of the Rules of Procedure for formal service against the Shenzhen defendant. The order established the legal principle that Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention applies in its entirety within the UPC system for service on defendants domiciled in non-EU contracting states, providing a uniform framework that supersedes any conflicting national requirements.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Milan (IT) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Cardo Systems, Ltd. vs Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited 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.