Executive Summary
This procedural order addressed the service of a Statement of Claim in an infringement action involving ICPillar LLC and various ARM group entities. The Court granted authorization for alternative service methods specifically for the Polish defendant, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o., due to delivery issues. However, the request for alternative service concerning UK defendants was dismissed because the Hague Service Convention process was still considered reasonable and in progress.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court established specific conditions under which an alternative method of service (R. 275.1 RoP) can be authorized, requiring that standard service procedures could not be effected. Furthermore, it clarified that in non-EU jurisdictions like the UK, the Hague Service Convention criteria must be met before invoking R. 275.1 RoP.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Paris (FR) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsDexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited , Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural order concerning confidential information, the UPC Local Division Munich balanced the need for parties' effective legal representation against the protection of trade secrets. The Court granted the Defendants' request to classify certain internal documents as strictly confidential, limiting access only to named representatives and employees. This ruling reinforces the principle that while lawyers require necessary access, accountability must be maintained by clearly defining who is responsible for maintaining confidentiality.
Barco N.V.vsYealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning a cost order issued by the CFI in provisional measures proceedings. Barco N.V., the appellant, sought to suspend the enforcement of a €112,000 cost award against it. The Court ultimately rejected this request, upholding the principle that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are met. This case reinforces the strict application of procedural rules regarding the suspension of judicial decisions within the UPC framework.
UERAN Technology LLCvsXiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
In this procedural order within the UPC infringement case (UPC_CFI_610/2025), UERAN Technology LLC successfully petitioned for a unified and streamlined timeline. The court granted the request, which aimed to prevent delays caused by incomplete service of process on all defendants, including those in China. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility and party cooperation as key drivers for efficient litigation within the UPC framework.
Adeia Guides Inc.vsThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al.
This procedural order in the UPC case between Adeia Guides Inc. and The Walt Disney Company addresses key logistical and financial aspects of a complex infringement and revocation dispute. The Court successfully set the monetary value of the claims at €12 million, streamlining the financial scope for both parties. Additionally, the court granted confidentiality measures requested by Disney, allowing the litigation to proceed under agreed-upon privacy terms.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonvsASUSTek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division order addresses a critical procedural dispute regarding the handling of highly confidential information in an infringement and revocation action. The Court established a comprehensive 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime, balancing the parties' rights to fair trial and full disclosure. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it provides clear guidance on how courts manage sensitive trade secrets within complex UPC litigation.
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.