Case Law
Rule 275: Service of the Statement of claim by an alternative method or at an alternative place

Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division, Order dated 31/07/2024, Panasonic Holdings Corporation (Case/ Registry number: App_43962/2024, ORD_44597/2024)
Example of decision on service by an alternative method: "A further attempt to serve the application under an alternative procedure or at another place pursuant to Rule 275.1 of the RoP shall not be required once all possibilities of service under Rules 270-274 of the RoP have been exhausted and the central authority of the requested State competent under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters seriously and finally refuses service because and as long as the designation of the defendant’s place of business by the plaintiff does not correspond to its political views."

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) – Local Division, Order dated 28/02/2024, ICPillar LLC (Case number: UPC_CFI_495/2023 ORD_10136/2024)
Example of decision on language of proceedings: “The Court notes that the request for an alternative procedure is a “reasoned request”, given that service is not effected yet, whereas the main application was registered on 28/12/2023.
Moreover, the Court considers that the steps already taken to bring the SoC to the defendant’s attention by an alternative method, as described above, respect the rights of the defence.
Therefore, the alternative method proposed by the Claimant is in accordance with the UPC principles of efficiency and fairness (RoP Preamble, points 4 and 5) and is a "good service" pursuant to R. 275.2 RoP.“

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division, Order dated 12/02/2024, ICPillar LLC/ ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco (Case number : UPC_CFI_14/2023 ORD_7671/2023)
Example of decision on an authorisation to use an alternative method for the service of statement of claim: “The Court authorizes an alternative method of service (R. 275.1 RoP) only if the service could not be effected. The method already effected by the Court is not considered to constitute an alternative method. The Hague Service Convention: If the registered letter has been received by the Central Authority, a delay of 10 days from the date of sending the registered letter shall not be considered as a failure of service..”
“The three other methods suggested below appear to be good service and comply with the law of the country where service is to be effected (R. 275.4 RoP), as they comply with the EU Service Regulation (EU 2020/1784). The date on which the SoC is deemed to have been served is the date of effective delivery of the letter to this defendant at his legal address.”

Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division, Order dated 08/12/2023, Panasonic Holding Corporation ./. Xiaomi Techniligy Germany GmbH (Case number UPC_CFI_219/2023 ORD_)
Example of decision on the possibility given by the court to consider that prior measures to bring the statement of claim to the attention of the defendant by another method or at another location constitute valid service when the legal service could not be carried out : “It is only when an attempt at service under sections 1 and 2 has been made but has been unsuccessful, and alternative service has therefore been ordered on request under rule 275.1 of the Rules of Procedure, that this rule applies.
It then opens up the possibility, as an ultima ratio, when the alternative service thus ordered has not been successful either, of ensuring that the measures already taken are sufficient for service. On the other hand, this rule does not make it possible to ignore international treaties binding EPC member states, such as the Hague Convention on service, and to consider that service has been effected on the basis of an imputation of knowledge within the group of companies.”
“Neither Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 nor the Hague Convention on the Service of Documents allow the attribution of knowledge defended by the applicants as a substitute for formal service.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 27/11/2023, Panasonic Holdings Corporation vs. Xiaomi Inc. et al. (Case number UPC_CFI_ 213/2023 UPC_CFI_220/2023 UPC_CFI_224/2023, ORD_589559/2023)
Example of decision concerning service of statement of claim on several co-defendants: “The Tribunal is therefore of the opinion - also taking into account the submissions of both parties - that the most the most efficient and economically sensible procedure in this case would be for the representatives representatives of defendants 3,4,5,6,9,10 to accept service of process on defendants defendants 1, 2, 7, 8 to defendant 3 as part of the claim under rule 275.2. accommodation, the deadline for response could be set uniformly at January 31, 2024, subject to a statement of position from the requesting party. The defendants’ request for an extension of time in 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 would then be interpreted as also including a request for an extension of time for the defendants in 1, 2, 7, 8.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 27/09/2023, Philips IP Ventures B.V. v. Edrich u.a. (Case number UPC_CFI_5/2023, ORD_576855/2023)
Example of decision on the service of the statement of claim by an alternative method: “In the opinion of the Local Chamber, legally effective alternative service in accordance with the wording of Rule 275 No. 2 RoP is not dependent on the fact that service could not be effected in accordance with Rules 270 to 274 RoP. Alternative service in accordance with Rule 275 No. 2 RoP is therefore also possible if an attempt at service in accordance with Rules 270 - 274 RoP has not yet been completed.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 27/09/2023, Koninklijke Philips N.V. / Edrich u.a. (Case number UPC_CFI_62/2023, ORD_576850/2023)
Example of decision on the service of the statement of claim by an alternative method: “In the opinion of the Local Chamber, knowledge can be assumed under Rule 275 No. 2 RoP if either a legal relationship exists according to which knowledge can be attributed (see 2. above) or concrete circumstances exist that justify the acquisition of knowledge.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 14/08/2023, Meril GmBH v. Edwards LifeSciences Corporation u.a. (Case number UPC _CFI_249/2023, ORD_562104/2023)
Example of decision on effective alternative service: “Successful service under Rule 271.1.c of the Constitution on one of several defendants Parties can, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, be assessed as an effective alternative service on another defendant party under Rule 275.2 of the Constitution.”