Short Summary
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against five defendants, including Chinese and Taiwanese entities, seeking to serve the Statement of claim on the Chinese Xiaomi companies via Xiaomi Germany and on MediaTek (Taiwan) via MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The Local Division dismissed the request, holding that service must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected Daedalus's appeal, confirming that group companies in Contracting Member States cannot automatically be treated as statutory seats, central administrations, or principal places of business of defendants domiciled in China or Taiwan, and that Hague Convention methods (for China) and diplomatic/consular channels (for Taiwan) must first be attempted.
Detailed Summary
Daedalus Prime LLC, a New York-based company, filed a patent infringement action before the Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) concerning EP 2 792 100 against five defendants: Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. (both in Beijing, China), Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. (Xiaomi NL), Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH (Xiaomi DE), and MediaTek Inc. (Hsin-Chu City, Taiwan). Daedalus requested that service of the Statement of claim on the Chinese Xiaomi companies be effected via Xiaomi DE, and service on MediaTek via MediaTek Germany GmbH, pursuant to Rule 271.5(a) RoP, which governs service on a party with a place of business in a Contracting Member State.
The Hamburg Local Division dismissed Daedalus's request, holding that Rule 271.5 RoP was not applicable because the Chinese Xiaomi companies and MediaTek are domiciled outside the territory of the Contracting Member States of the UPCA, and Daedalus was not arguing that these companies had their statutory seat, central administration, or principal place of business within the Contracting Member States. The Local Division concluded that service must be effected in accordance with Rules 273 and 274 RoP, requiring at least a first attempt of service on the Chinese Xiaomi companies under the Hague Convention (Rule 274.1(a)(ii) RoP), since China is a party to the Hague Convention but not covered by Regulation (EU) 2020/1784. For MediaTek in Taiwan, which has not acceded to the Hague Convention, service must be attempted through diplomatic or consular channels from Germany (Rule 274.1(a)(iii) RoP). Daedalus was instructed to submit the necessary documents, including translations into Chinese.
Daedalus appealed, arguing that the German subsidiaries constituted 'permanent places of business' under Rule 271.5(a) RoP, pointing to the Xiaomi Group's uniform business strategy and the fact that Xiaomi DE is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xiaomi NL, which is in turn controlled by the Chinese parent companies. Daedalus argued that the Chinese parent companies determine the global business of the Xiaomi Group and use Xiaomi DE as an extension of the Chinese parent company.
The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. It held that a defendant company in China or Taiwan cannot, as a starting point, be served via a company within the same group in a Contracting Member State. Such a group company cannot automatically be seen as a statutory seat, central administration, or principal place of business of a defendant in China or Taiwan, nor a place where such defendant has a permanent or temporary place of business. The Court emphasized that the concept of 'place of business' requires a minimum degree of stability and a suitable infrastructure, and that the mere fact that a subsidiary acts as an extension of the parent company does not transform the subsidiary into a place of business of the parent. The Court also noted that the EU Service Regulation (Regulation 2020/1784) does not apply to defendants in China or Taiwan, meaning the conditions for Rule 274.1(a)(i) RoP are not met.
The Court of Appeal further dismissed Daedalus's auxiliary requests, which were first raised at the oral hearing, finding that Daedalus could not justify why they could not reasonably have been made earlier and that allowing them would have contravened the interests of the other party (Rule 222.2 RoP). The Court clarified that its ruling did not preclude the possibility of service by other or alternative methods at a later stage under Rules 274.1(b) and 275 RoP. No decision on costs was made, as the order was not a final order concluding the proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Daedalus Prime LLC vs Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH 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.