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
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.