Key takeaways
Electronic service of the statement of claim
Rule 275 RoP does not permit the court to designate someone as person authorised to accept service, if that person has not notified the Registry or the claimant to be willing to accept service of the statement of claim on behalf of the defendant at an electronic address (Rule 271.1 (c) RoP). If this person previously refused to accept service of the statement of claim towards the claimant, the UPC is not required to ask this person again whether service will be accepted.
Service of the statement of claim by an alternative method
In contrast to German law (§ 185 no. 3 ZPO), Rule 275.1 RoP requires an actual ("real") but unsuccessful attempt of service before service by an alternative method or at an alternative place may be ordered (cf. LD Mannheim, decision on 8 December 2023, CFI_219/2023). It is not sufficient that service presumptively is not possible because of known deficiencies of service according to the Hague Convention in certain countries, e.g., China and Hong Kong.
FRAND obligations have no impact on service
The potential breach of the defendant's FRAND obligations has no bearing on the question of whether service could not be effected. The assessment of the defendant's conduct as a breach of FRAND obligations is only relevant with respect to the FRAND objection and not relevant in the context of Rule 275 RoP.
Division
Local Division Munich
UPC number
UPC_CFI_498/2023
Type of proceedings
Service of statement in infringement action
Parties
NEC Corporation
TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.
TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.
TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 275 RoP, Rule 271.1.(c) RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
