UPC_CFI_2660/2026 – Micron v Ultron

Expert Commentary

Service Facts 1. Claimant Micron stated that it had not been possible to serve the Statement of Claim to defendant 2 (a Dutch company) via postal service. 2. Micron asked permission to use alternative service set out in R. 275.1 RoP, which refers to service by a Dutch bailiff in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 (“the Regulation”). The JR The Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) allowed the alternative service at the claimant expense. Comment 1. R. 271(4) RoP states that any other method foreseen by EU law can be used for service, referring to Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt. In the Netherlands, the postal service goes to the address indicated and, if nobody answers the door, they leave a form in the letterbox stating that a registered letter can be collected from a nearby post office within a certain number of days. Often, such a letter is never collected, meaning that service is not completed. The same is true if somebody opens the door but refuses to sign for receipt of the letter. 2. The Rules state that, apart from electronic service, this is the preferred method under the Regulation. While it is indeed the cheapest and simplest method, there is no guarantee that the service will be performed. 3. In my opinion, however, the request and order with respect to alternative service is unnecessary. The sub registry should have used one of the other methods set out in EU Regulation, which are clearly also covered by R. 271.4(a) RoP. They should simply send it to any Dutch bailiff with a request to serve (in Dutch, English or German) (see Art. 20 of the Regulation). 4. As mentioned previously: It is much better to let the claimant do (and pay for) the service, rather than the (sub)registry, although I must admit that the claimant also apparently did not know how to do this!

Full Decision Text

Düsseldorf - Local Division UPC_CFI_2660/2026 Procedural order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Düsseldorf Local Division, delivered on 2 October 2026 CLAIMANT Micron Technology, Inc. 8000 South Federal Way, Boise, Idaho 83716, USA, Represented by: Dr. Tobias Wuttke (Bardehle Pagenberg) DEFENDANTS 1. Ultron AG, Robert-Koch-Str. 7-17, 52499 Baesweiler, Germany 2. Lexar Europe B.V., Grevelingstraat 40, 2161WG, Lisse, the Netherlands, 3. Apacer Technology B.V., Science Park Eindhoven 5051, 5692 EB Son en Breugel, The Netherlands, Patent at issue EP3574526 Composition of the full panel: Presiding judge Ronny Thomas Judge rapporteur Peter Juul Agergaard Legally qualified judge Dr. Jule Schumacher This order is issued by the judge rapporteur Peter Juul Agergaard LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS English Subject matter of the proceedings: Application pursuant to Rule 275. RoP. SUMMARY OF FACTS The Court has made attempts to service the documents on Lexar Europe B.V. (Defendant 2) according to Rule 270-274 RoP. The Claimant has applied for an order pursuant to R. 275 RoP directing service of the Statement of Claim (SoC) and accompanying documents on Defendant 2), Lexar Europe B.V., by an alternative method and requested the Court to order service of the Statement of claim and accompanying documents on Defendant 2) via the competent Dutch authority, here by judicial officer (in Dutch: gerechtsdeurwaarder), in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 on the service in the Member States of judicial documents, in civil and commercial matters. The Claimant has stated that regular service has been attempted and has failed. The Court has already made an attempt to serve the SoC on Defendant 2) but this attempt has failed. The Court undertook service of the Statement of Claim on Defendant 2) by postal service in accordance with the applicable rules (Art. 18 Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 (recast), .i.e. by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt in accordance with R. 271.4 lit. a) RoP and Art. 18 Regulation (EU) 2020/1784. The digital tracking provided by the Dutch postal service showed that delivery at the registered address of Defendant 2) by the Dutch postal service was not possible; the documents were instead left at a postal pickup location in the Netherlands, where they were, however, not collected by Defendant 2) and which resulted in the documents being returned to the Court undelivered. The Claimant has further stated that consensual service via Defendant 2's known representative has been refused. The Claimant has requested that the Court order service on Defendant 2) by a judicial officer / bailiff (in Dutch: gerechtsdeurwaarder) according to Art. 20 Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 as alternative method of service. According to Art. 20 para. 1 Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, any person with an interest in particular judicial proceedings may effect the service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the Member State in which service is sought, provided that such direct service is permitted under the law of that Member State. According to the information provided by the European Commission through the European e-Justice Portal (see Art. 20 para. 2 Regulation (EU) 2020/1784), direct service by a judicial officer is allowed for persons resident in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, all judicial officers have been appointed by law to act as the receiving and transmitting authority under Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 and therefore may perform official acts throughout the Netherlands. Request The Claimant has requested an order pursuant to R. 275 RoP directing service of the Statement of Claim (SoC) and accompanying documents on Defendant 2), Lexar Europe B.V., by an alternative method and requested the Court to order service of the Statement of claim and accompanying documents on Defendant 2) via the competent Dutch authority, here by judicial officer (in Dutch: gerechtsdeurwaarder), in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 on the service in the Member States of judicial documents, in civil and commercial matters. Grounds The Court has made unsuccessful attempts to service the documents on Lexar Europe B.V. (Defendant 2) according to rule 270-274 RoP. Based on the information at hand the service of documents on Lexar Europe B.V. (Defendant 2) in accordance with Rules 270-274 RoP is to be considered impossible. Based on the application from the Claimant the Court finds there is a good reason to authorize service by a method not otherwise permitted. Therefore an attempt must be made, if possible, to effect service by an alternative method or at an alternative place (Rule 275.1 RoP). According to article 20 (1) in Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 any person with an interest in particular judicial proceedings may effect the service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the Member State in which the service is sought, provided that such direct service is permitted under the law of that Member State. The Court assumes that service of documents in the Netherlands is carried out by a bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder). The bailiff delivers the writ to the addressee by serving it in person. The bailiff completes the writ by making a written record on the spot of how they have delivered it to the addressee and by signing it. As other methods of service have not been successful the Court permits service of the Statement of claim and accompanying documents on Defendant 2) via the competent Dutch authority, (gerechtsdeurwaarder), in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 on the service in the Member States of judicial documents, in civil and commercial matters. The Claimant must cover the costs of the service. Order The request from the Claimant is granted. The Court permits service of the Statement of claim and accompanying documents on Lexar Europe B.V., (Defendant 2) via the competent Dutch authority, (gerechtsdeurwaarder), in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 on the service in the Member States of judicial documents, in civil and commercial matters. The Claimant must cover the costs of the service. Issued 2 October 2026 Judge-rapporteur Peter Juul Agergaard

Key Holdings

• Where service by postal service on a defendant (in the Netherlands) was not possible, alternative service under Rule 275.1 RoP was permitted at the claimant's expense.
• Rule 275.1 RoP allows alternative service by a Dutch bailiff in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2020/1784.
• Rule 271.4(a) RoP covers other service methods foreseen by EU law, including direct transmission to a national bailiff under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784.

Tags

• Service
• Alternative service
• Regulation (EU) 2020/1784