Key takeaways
The Hague Service Convention is applicable in the UPC system regardless of any additional national requirements
The Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention is entirely applicable in UPC System, regardless of any additional requirements for service within each Member State. Indeed: (i) the service system in the UPC is uniform; ii) participating Members States in the UPC system have also indirectly adopted the rules laid down in the Hague Service Convention by adopting the rules of procedure, without exception, at least with regard to notifications ordered by UPC Courts. (Headnote)
Service (in China) may be considered legally valid if service pursuant to the Hague Service Convention finally failed
Service to Defendant 1), domiciled in Shenzhen, China, was seriously and definitively refused by the authorities because the Statement of Claim referred to Defendant 2)’s domicile as “Hong Kong” instead of “Hong Kong, China”. In turn, the Court ordered that the steps already taken constitute legally valid service pursuant to R. 275.2 RoP. See also CoA Luxembourg, August 6, 2024, order on service, UPC_CoA_205/2024, CoA Luxembourg, August 5, 2024, order on service of a Statement of Claim on defendants in China and Taiwan, UPC_CoA_183/2024 and CoA Luxembourg, August 5, 2024, order on service in China and Hongkong, UPC_CoA_86/2024.
Division
Local Division Milan
UPC number
UPC CFI_766/2024
Type of proceedings
Infringement proceedings
Parties
Claimant: Cardo Systems, Ltd.
Defendants: Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd.; Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
Patent(s)
EP 4 240 194
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 275 RoP, The Hague Service Convention
