Case Law
Rule 271: Service of the Statement of claim
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 06/08/2024, Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH (Case/ Registry number: APL_10370/2024, ORD_34249/2024)
Example of decision on service of the statement of claim: "A defendant company in China or Hong Kong cannot, as a starting point, be served a Statement of claim via a company within the same group in a Contracting Member State. Such a group company cannot automatically be seen as a statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business, nor a place where the company has a permanent or temporary place of business pursuant to R.271.5(a) RoP."
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 17/06/2024, M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH (Case/ Registry number: App_36031/2024, ORD_36068/2024)
Example of decision on the determination on the address of the temporary place of business: "Pursuant to Rule 271.5 (a) ROP, service may be effected at any place within the Contracting Member States where the company or other legal person has a permanent or temporary place of business. The latter may be the case for a trade fair stand if - as is usually the case - at least deliveries are also advertised there (see Tilman/Plassmann/v. Falck/Stoll, Unitary Patent, Unified Patent Court, EPGVerfO Rule 271 para. 14; Luginbühl/ Hüttermann/ M. Meyer Unitary Patent System, Rule 271 RP para. 45). This is to be assumed in the present case in the absence of any indications to the contrary."
Court of Appeal – Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 09/04/2024, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V;, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiamoy Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Shamrock Mobile GmbH ORD_18690/2024
Example of decision on the mutatis mutandis application of rules 270-279 of the Rules of Procedure in appeal proceedings: “In appeal proceedings, Chapter 2 – Service (Rules 270 – 279) of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) applies mutatis mutandis. Consequently, if during the proceedings at the Court of First Instance, Rule 271.1 RoP applied (in short: an electronic address for service was provided by the defendant or his representative) and/or a representative of the respondent accepted service on behalf of the respondent, then pursuant to R.271.2 RoP further service – not only in the proceedings at first instance, but also in appeal proceedings - shall be effected within the closed electronic system of the UPC Case Management System (CMS).”
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 25/08/2023, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v. Tesla Germany u.a. (Case number UPC_CFI_52/2023, ORD_567008/2023)
Example of decision on the date of notification by post: “A handover to the postal company within the meaning of Rule 271 No. 6 b RoP is usually expected at the Munich Local Court one to two days after the handover to the postal route of the Munich Higher Regional Court. Consequently, the Munich Local Court has a consistent practice of accepting a posting two days later, in this case on 07.07.2023. Pursuant to Rule 271 No. 6 b RoP, the tenth day after 07.07.2023 is deemed to be the date of service, i.e. 17.07.2023. This date is later than the actual date of service. The non-extended period for filing a statement of defense would therefore expire on 17.10.2023.”
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 01/08/2023, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd (Case number UPC_CFI_15/2023, App_557291/2023)
Example of decision on the Date of notification in electronic form which is when the electronic message was sent: “If a representative accepts electronic service on behalf of the party in accordance with Rule 8.1 of the Rules of Procedure, service may be effected within the closed electronic system of the EPG case management system (CMS) in accordance with Rule 271.2 of the Rules of Procedure. This means that it is not the statement of claim and attachments themselves that are sent in electronic form, but an access code to the CMS.”