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. & Wizart LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KGvsVibrantz GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement and nullity counterclaim proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 215 288 (metal sintering preparation). The court addressed multiple requests including the review of a prior rejection of an amendment to add indirect infringement of a process claim, and requests by both parties to extend the proceedings to Romania following its accession to the UPC Agreement on September 1, 2024. The court granted the extensions to Romania for both the infringement claim and the nullity counterclaim, revised its prior order on indirect infringement, and established a new briefing schedule.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KGvsIndustria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This case concerned an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 602 692, accompanied by a revocation counterclaim. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement claim and the defendants withdrew the revocation counterclaim. The court allowed both withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and addressed the refund of court fees, setting the value of the infringement claim at €750,000 and the revocation counterclaim at €1,125,000.
Robert Bosch Doo Beograd and OthersvsValeo Systemes d'Essuyage
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by several Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Paris Local Division that had rejected their preliminary objections to the court's competence. The court addressed the interpretation of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA regarding the requirements for establishing competence over multiple defendants, holding that belonging to the same group of companies can constitute a commercial relationship and that the 'same alleged infringement' condition requires the same patent and substantially the same products, irrespective of commercial designations or supply channels.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare LimitedvsFlexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) concerns a revocation action regarding EP 4185356. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce new auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted in exceptional circumstances and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna et al.
Procedural order in patent infringement proceedings before the Local Division The Hague concerning European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941 owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities. The court exercised its discretionary power under R.302.1 RoP to order the defendants to split their counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1526/2025), which concerned both patents, into two separate counterclaim actions—one per patent—due to procedural complexity, differing opposition stages at the EPO, and court fee considerations.
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.