UPC_CFI_449/2025 – Hewlett-Packard v Zhuhai
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Electronics/SEP
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Service of judgment in China Facts 1. After service through the The Hague Convention proved impossible, the Court declared “good service” under R. 275.2 RoP and, after granting the defendant time to appear, issued a preliminary injunction (“PI”). 2. The claimant sent the PI order by e-mail to the Chinese defendant, asking for confirmation of receipt. No confirmation was received. 3. The claimant requested the Court to declare that the publication of the order on the website of the UPC constitutes “good service”. The Court The Court granted the request and held that service is effective as of the date of this order, which will also be published on the website of the UPC. Comment 1. I have already expressed my view that the whole business of alternative service for obtaining a PI was unnecessary in light of Art. 15(3) of the The Hague Convention. 2. However, there is no provision allowing service of the judgment without the cooperation of the Chinese authorities. 3. Accordingly, the Court’s decision is correct. The only (small) remark is that, in my opinion, it would have been even better if the Court had also ordered the order to be sent also by mail to the Chinese defendant, as the claimant had already done earlier when requesting confirmation of the receipt of the decision.
Full Decision Text
1 Düsseldorf Local Division UPC CFI 449/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 February 2026 concerning EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1 APPLICANT: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Texas 77389, USA Represented by: Attorney-at-law Vanessa Werlin, Freshfields Part mbB, Maximilansplatz 13, 80333 Munich, Germany Electronic address for service: vanessa.werlin@freshfields.com contributing: Patent Attorney Dr Wolfgang Lippich, Patent Attorney Alex- ander von Poswik, Patent Attorney Martin Janovec, Widenmayerstraße 6, 80538 Munich, Germany DEFENDANTS: 1. Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd, Room 712-2, Building 2, No. 2288, Mingzhu South Road Qianshan, Xiangzhou District Zhuhai City, Guangdong, 519060, China [2. Andreas Rentmeister e.K., Rufacherstr. 7, 79910 Freiburg, Germany] Defendant 2. represented by: Attorney-at-law Jochen Bühling, Krieger Mes Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB, Bennigsen-Platz 1, 40474 Düsseldorf, Germany Electronic address for service: jochen.buehling@krieger-mes.de EUROPEAN PATENTS NO. EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf DECIDING JUDGES: This order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as judge-rapporteur, the legally qualified judge Dr Schumacher and the legally qualified judge Lopes. 2 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT: R. 275.2 RoP – Order of good service SUMMARY OF THE FACTS: 1. By way of an application for provisional measures, the Applicant sought a preliminary injunc- tion and further provisional measures against the Defendants in respect of an alleged in- fringement of EP 2 826 630 B1 (hereinafter: Patent A) and of EP 3 530 469 B1 (hereinafter: Patent B). 2. The application for provisional measures was filed on 28 May 2025. 3. Service to the Defendant 1., who is based in China, was initiated via the official online portal of the Central Authority of China on 4 June 2025. According to the available online processing history, the documents to be delivered were forwarded within the Chinese authorities to the Supreme People’s Court for further processing, where they arrived on 5 June 2025. No fur- ther processing by the Chinese authorities could then be detected on the online portal. Therefore, the Applicant asked Defendant 1. to voluntarily accept service of the application for provisional measures. The Applicant set a deadline of 15 September 2025. This request was unsuccessful. Against this background, on 18 September 2025, the Applicant requested the Düsseldorf Local Division to make an inquiry to the Central Authority of China regarding the status of service of the application for provisional measures. The Court complied with this request by submitting a corresponding inquiry in Chinese via the online portal. On 23 September 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division received a certificate issued by the Chinese authorities stating “that the document has not been served, by reason of the following facts: No such company at the address provided.” 4. Following an Applicant’s request, the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered on 16 October 2025 that the steps already taken to bring the application for provisional measures in the proceed- ings UPC CFI 449/2025 to the attention of Defendant 1. constitute good service pursuant to R. 275.2 RoP. Furthermore, the Court ordered that service is deemed to be effective as of the date of the order mentioned above. This order was published on UPC’s website. 5. Since until 28 November 2025 no objection has been lodged, the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a preliminary injunction and ordered further provisional measures. 6. By brief dated 16 December 2025, the Applicant informed the Court that it has sent an email at the address ouguanuk@sina.de, as listed in Defendant’s 1. Amazon seller profile. In this email, the Applicant informed Defendant 1. of the above mentioned order, included a link to the published order and requested Defendant 1. to confirm the receipt of the email and the Court’s order by 15 December 2025. However, according to the Applicant, Defendant 1. did not respond. INDICATION OF THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS: 7. The Applicant requests, 1. that the Court order(s) that the publication of the order of provisional measures UPC CFI 449/2025 dated 28 November 2025 on the Court’s website with the names of 3 the parties and the file number, so that the order can be found under the decisions pub- lished on the website, constitutes good service on Defendant I pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP UPC. Service shall be deemed effective as of the date of this order; 2. the order according to item 1. be published on the Court’s website with the names of the parties and the file number, so that the order can be found under the decisions pub- lished on the website. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER: 8. Pursuant to R. 275.2 RoP, on a reasoned request by the claimant, the Court may order that steps already taken to bring the statement of claim to the attention of the defendant by an alternative method or at an alternative place is good service. 9. The Düsseldorf Local Division considered the requirements for such a service were met with regard to the application for provisional measures. For details, reference is made to the or- der of 16 October 2025 to avoid repetition. 10. Pursuant to R. 6.1(a) RoP, the order of 28 November 2025 must also be served. However, if it has not been possible to serve the application for provisional measures in accordance with R. 274 RoP and there is no indication that the order containing a preliminary injunction and ordering of further provisional measures, issued subsequently in the same proceedings, can be served in accordance with R. 274 RoP, it is not necessary to attempt to serve this order in accordance with R. 274 RoP before an order is made under R. 275.2 RoP. It would be incom- patible with the principle of effective judicial protection to force the Applicant, or even the Court, to take steps to ensure effective service which are clearly futile (regarding a decision by default: UPC CFI 509/2023 (LD Munich), Order of 21 January 2025 – air up group v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology). 11. Despite the Applicant's repeated attempts to establish contact via email and the publication of the R. 275.2 RoP order regarding the PI application and the publication of the 28 Novem- ber 2025 order containing the preliminary injunction and ordering further provisional measures on the UPC website, Defendant 1. did not contact the Applicant or the Court. Attempts to formally serve the PI application were also unsuccessful. 12. There are no other effective means of informing Defendant 1. of the preliminary injunction and the ordering of further provisional measures. Any attempt to formally serve this order in China would not be compatible with the requirement for effective legal protection, given the time involved and the uncertain prospects of success based on previous experience. 13. On the assumption that the rules of service of the Rules of Procedure must be interpreted in accordance with the principle of effective judicial protection, the Court declares that the publication of the order on the Court’s website, of which Defendant 1. had been notified via email, constitutes good service. 4 ORDER: I. The publication of the order containing a preliminary injunction and ordering of further provisional measures, dated 28 November 2025, on the Court’s website with the names of the parties and the file number, so that the order can be found under the decisions and orders published on the website, constitutes good service on Defendant 1. pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP. II. Service is deemed to be effective as of the date of this order. III. This order shall be published on the Court’s website with the names and the file num- ber, so that the order can be found under the orders and decisions published on the website. Issued in Düsseldorf on 2 February 2026 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Presiding Judge Thomas Legally qualified judge Dr Schumacher Legally qualified judge Lopes
Key Holdings
- When conventional service (e.g., Hague Convention) proves impossible, 'good service' can be declared under R. 275.2 RoP.
- Publication of an order on the UPC website can constitute 'good service' for judgments, especially when no other provision for service without foreign authority cooperation exists.
- Alternative service methods for preliminary injunctions may be unnecessary in light of international conventions.
Tags
- International Law
- Preliminary Injunction
- Service