Short Summary
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 859 566, in which the court permitted alternative service of the Statement of claim on Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure. After two failed attempts to serve Wizart LLC at its original Wilmington, Delaware address and at the registered agent's address in Newark, the court authorized service on the CEO at his business address in Gdańsk, Poland, finding that such service was permissible under Polish law.
Detailed Summary
This Procedural Order, issued on 15 October 2025 by Judge-Rapporteur Dr Schumacher of the Düsseldorf Local Division (case UPC_CFI_541/2025), concerns European Patent No. 3 859 566 and addresses an application by the Claimant, Leap Tools Inc. (a Canadian company represented by CEO Pawel Rajszel), for alternative service on Defendant 2, Wizart LLC, under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP).
The Claimant had filed an infringement action against both Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC on 13 June 2025, naming '919 North Market St, Suite 950, Wilmington, 19801-3036, DE, USA' as the address for both Defendants. Service at this address failed for both Defendants, with an on-site employee indicating that both companies had moved to Newark.
The Claimant successfully located a registered agent for Defendant 1 (Wizart Inc.) in Newark—Incorp Services, Inc., 131 Continental Drive, Suite 301, Newark, Delaware—and served the Statement of claim there on 21 July 2025. However, service on Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) at the same registered agent's address failed because the person on site refused, stating that Incorp Services was not the registered agent for Wizart LLC.
On 8 September 2025, the Claimant filed a brief requesting alternative service on Defendant 2 by serving the CEO, Vasili Yavarchuk, at his business address in Poland. Following a request from the judge-rapporteur on 11 September 2025 for more detailed information about the Claimant's efforts to determine Defendant 2's new address, the Claimant submitted a further brief on 25 September 2025 detailing its research, including searches in the Delaware corporate registry and unsuccessful follow-ups on references to addresses in Belarus and Poland.
The court found that the requirements of Rule 275.1 RoP were met, holding that there was good reason to authorize alternative service. The court noted that two service attempts had failed: (1) a first attempt under Rule 274.1(a)(ii) RoP via the Hague Convention at the original Wilmington address, which was justified as the original business address based on publicly available information and the Wizart website's Privacy Policy; and (2) a second attempt at the registered agent's address in Newark, which was unsuccessful. The court accepted that the Claimant could not reasonably be expected to make further attempts to ascertain a new address for Defendant 2.
The court also found, pursuant to Rule 275.4 RoP, that alternative service was not contrary to Polish law, as service on a managing director is permitted under Polish law.
Accordingly, the court ordered that the Statement of claim dated 13 June 2025 be served on Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) by serving it on its CEO, Vasili Yavarchuk, at his business address: Exposit Consulting Sp. z.o.o., Jana Heweliusza 11/819, Gdańsk, Poland, 80-890.
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 Leap Tools Inc. vs Wizart Inc. a. o. 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.