Short Summary
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.
Detailed Summary
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (the Applicant) filed an application for provisional measures on 13 June 2025 against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. (the Defendants) seeking a preliminary injunction for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 835 965 B1. After submitting translations requested by the Court, service on Defendant 2 was initiated via the official online portal of the Central Authority of China on 18 June 2025. The documents were forwarded within the Chinese authorities to the Supreme People's Court on 19 June 2025, but no further processing was detected on the online portal thereafter.
The Applicant attempted to have Defendant 2 voluntarily accept service, setting a deadline of 15 September 2025, but this request was unsuccessful. On 10 October 2025, the Applicant requested the Düsseldorf Local Division to make inquiries to the Central Authority of China regarding the status of service. The Court complied by submitting inquiries in Chinese via the online portal on 20 October 2025 and 4 November 2025, but both inquiries remained unanswered prior to the issuance of the order.
The Applicant requested the Court to order that the steps already taken to bring the application for provisional measures to the attention of Defendant 2 constitute good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, and that the order be published on the Court's website.
The Court reasoned that although Rule 275.2 RoP concerns the service of the statement of claim and therefore proceedings on the merits, the option to consider steps already taken as good service must apply even more so for provisional measures given their urgent nature. The Court found it had exhausted all available means of formal service under Rules 270 to 274 RoP, and that service under the Hague Convention was to be regarded as definitely failed. The Court held that Article 15(2) of the Hague Convention, which requires a period of not less than six months since transmission of the document, cannot apply without restriction in provisional measure proceedings, as applying it formally would put the Applicant at risk of its legal protection becoming ineffective. Article 15(3) of the Hague Convention was cited as recognizing this issue by allowing provisional measures in urgent cases despite formal service requirements.
The Court noted that the Applicant had credibly demonstrated that the address of Defendant 2 was correct, that two requests for information written in Chinese had remained unanswered for three weeks, and that the Applicant's attempt to inform Defendant 2 by email had also remained unanswered. The Court found no other apparent alternative service options, and therefore no scope for an order under Rule 275.1 RoP. To ensure effective legal protection, the Court ordered that the steps already taken constitute good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, that service be deemed effective as of the date of the order, and that the order be published on the Court's website with the names of the parties and the file number.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. vs 1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
NJOY Netherlands B.V.vsRespondent
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against Juul Labs International Inc. regarding EP 3 504 991 before the Paris Central Division, which dismissed the action and ordered NJOY to bear the costs. NJOY appealed the cost decision, but subsequently applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP, with Juul Labs' consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KGvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The defendant requested that certain sections of the claimant's reply brief dated August 25, 2025 be disregarded under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that the claimant was only permitted to respond to the auxiliary request for patent amendment under Rule 32.3 RoP, and not to address the patent in its granted form. The defendant alternatively sought leave to reply to those sections and an extension of the reply deadline under Rule 336 RoP.
AGFA NVvsGucci Sweden AB, GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS, Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, Gucci Logistica S.p.A.
AGFA NV, a Belgium-based company specializing in industrial inkjet technology, sued nine European entities belonging to the French luxury conglomerate Kering (including Guccio Gucci S.p.A. and related companies) in connection with European Patent EP 3 388 490 B1 titled 'Decorating Natural Leather.' The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in its entirety. The Local Division Hamburg addressed key issues including the scope of counterclaim attacks under Articles 32(1)(e) and 65(1) UPCA, claim interpretation using the patent as its own lexicon, and the admissibility of late-filed validity arguments and prior art documents introduced for the first time at the oral hearing.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Nordic AB, Samsung Electronics France SAS, Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A.vsRespondent
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action related to EP 2 936 439. All parties agreed to a uniform fictitious service date of 1 September 2025 for all Defendants, avoiding service abroad on Defendant 2 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.). The court granted the agreed extension of procedural deadlines, setting new dates for preliminary objections, statements of defence, and the Claimant's reply.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)vsRespondent
This case concerns a request by Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, UEFA, and Kinexon GmbH for security for costs of the appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. before the Court of Appeal. Ballinno had previously been ordered by the Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) to provide €56,000 in security for costs and had its application for provisional measures dismissed. The appeal concerns both the security order and the main order dismissing the provisional measures application. The matter relates to European Patent EP 1 944 067.
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.