Key takeaways
A defendant company in China or Hongkong cannot, as a starting point, be served a complaint via a company within the same group in a Contracting Member State
Service within the Contracting Member States is governed by R. 270 through 272 RoP. Service outside the Contracting Member States is instead governed by R. 273 and 274 RoP. R. 271.5(a) RoP provides for alternative places of service for a defendant having its registered office in the UPC territory. Therefore, R. 271.5(a) RoP does not apply to defendants having their registered office in China or Hongkong. A group company cannot automatically be seen as a statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business of a defendant company in China or Hongkong, nor a place where such defendant has a permanent or temporary place of business.
Attempts to serve in China by any method provided for by the Hague Convention pursuant to R. 274.1(a)(ii) RoP shall normally be made before service permitted by the law of the state where service is to be effected (R. 274.1(b) RoP) or by alternative methods or at an alternative place (R. 275 RoP) is permitted
This reasoning follows from Article 15(2) of the Hague Convention which provides that, as a general rule, an attempt must be made to serve the complaint by any means provided for in the Hague Service Convention before the court allows or orders service by any other means or at any other place.
The Hague Service Convention applies to companies with a registered office in China and Hongkong (R. 274.1(a)(ii) RoP)
Division
CoA Luxembourg
UPC number
EPG_CoA_86/2024
APL_10370/2024
Type of proceedings
Appeal proceedings
Parties
Panasonic Holdings Corporation
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH (Germany), Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S. (France), Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. (Italy), Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. (Netherlands), Odiporo GmbH (Germany), Shamrock Mobile GmbH (Germany)
Patent(s)
EP 2 207 270
Jurisdictions
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 271.5(a) RoP, Rule 274 RoP, Rule 275 RoP
