Key takeaways
A defendant company in China or Taiwan cannot be served a complaint 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 of a defendant company in China or Hongkong, nor a place where such defendant has a permanent or temporary place of business. R. 271.5(a) RoP rather provides for alternative places of service for a defendant having its registered office in the UPC territory. R. 274 RoP applies to service of a complaint outside the Contracting Member States.
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 (R. 274.1(a)(ii) RoP).
Similarly, attempts to serve in Taiwan by diplomatic or consular channels pursuant to R. 274.1(a)(iii) RoP shall be made
Division
Court of Appeal Luxembourg
UPC number
UPC_CoA_183/2024
Type of proceedings
Place type of proceedings
Parties
Daedalus Prime LLC (U.S.A.)
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. (China), Xiaomi Inc. (China), Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. (the Netherlands), Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH (Germany), MediaTek Inc. (Taiwan)
Patent(s)
EP 2 792 100
Jurisdictions
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 271.5(a) RoP, Rule 274 RoP
