UPC_CFI_515/2025 – HP v Shenzhen Moan

Expert Commentary

Publication of decision Facts 1. HP obtained a preliminary injunction (“PI”) against the Chinese company Shenzhen Moan. 2. Despite efforts to this end, service of the decision could not be completed. 3. The decision was sent to Shenzhen Moan by email. 4. HP asked the Court to rule good service under R. 275.2 RoP and to order publication of the PI order on the website of the Court and to publish also this order. The Court The Court granted the request. Comment 1. Now that the order has been served, Shenzhen Moan would forfeit penalty sums if it continues to sell in the UPC area. However, if there are no assets in the European Union, then you wonder what this brings to HP? 2. I think that companies like Shenzhen Moan should realize that continuing infringements in the UPC which trigger penalty payments may cause problems, not only in the European Union but also in for example the US. It seems to me very well possible that a US Court would allow the enforcement of a decision of the UPC with respect to forfeited penalty payments. So, representatives should be careful advising Chinese (or other non-UPC companies) to put their head in the sand!

Full Decision Text

1 Düsseldorf Local Division UPC CFI 515/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 February 2026 concerning EP 3 835 965 B1 APPLICANT: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Texas 77389, USA Represented by: Attorney-at-law Richard Wunderlich, Freshfields Part mbB, Potsdamer Platz 1, 10785 Berlin, Germany Electronic address for service: richard.wunderlich@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. Andreas Rentmeister e.K., Rufacherstr. 7, 79910 Freiburg, Germany] Defendant 1. 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 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd., Room 4F67, Building 2 and 3, M-10, Maqueling Indus- trial Zone Maling Community, Yuehai Street, Nanshan District, 518057 Shenzhen City, Guang- dong, China EUROPEAN PATENTS NO. EP 3 835 965 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 2 judge Dr Schumacher and the legally qualified judge Lopes. 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 seeks a preliminary injunc- tion and further provisional measures against the Defendants in respect of an alleged in- fringement of EP 3 835 965 B1 (hereinafter: patent in suit). 2. The application for provisional measures was filed on 13 June 2025. 3. Service to the Defendant 2., who is based in China, was initiated via the official online portal of the Central Authority of China on 18 June 2025. According to the available online pro- cessing history, the documents to be delivered were forwarded within the Chinese authori- ties to the Supreme People’s Court for further processing, where they arrived on 19 June 2025. No further processing by the Chinese authorities could then be detected on the online portal. Therefore, the Applicant asked Defendant 2. 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 10 October 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 com- plied with this request by submitting corresponding inquiries in Chinese via the online portal on 20 October 2025 and on 4 November 2025. However, both inquiries remained unanswered prior to the issuance of this order. 4. Following an Applicant’s request, the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered on 11 November 2025 that the steps already taken to bring the application for provisional measures in the proceedings UPC CFI 515/2025 to the attention of Defendant 2. constitute good service pursuant to R. 275.2 RoP. Furthermore, the Court ordered that service is deemed to be ef- fective as of the date of this order. The order was published on UPC’s website. 5. Since until 19 December 2025 no objection has been lodged, the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a preliminary injunction and ordered further provisional measures. 6. By brief dated 13 January 2026, the Applicant informed the Court that it has sent an email at the address inkpadeu@ink-pad.net, as listed in Defendant’s 2. Amazon seller profile. In this email, the Applicant informed Defendant 2. of the above mentioned order, included a link to the published order and requested Defendant 2. to confirm the receipt of the email and the Court’s order by 12 January 2026. However, according to the Applicant, Defendant 2. did not respond. INDICATION OF THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS: 7. The Applicant requests, 1. that the Court order that the publication of the order of provisional measures UPC CFI 515/2025 dated 19 December 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 II 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 11 December 2025 to avoid repetition. 10. Pursuant to R. 6.1(a) RoP, the order of 19 December 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 19 Decem- ber 2025 order containing the preliminary injunction and ordering further provisional measures on the UPC website, Defendant 2. 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 2. 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 2. 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 19 December 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 published on the website, constitutes good service on Defendant 2. 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 LopesRonny Thomas Digital unterschrieben von Ronny Thomas Datum: 2026.01.30 10:52:50 +01'00'

Key Holdings

• The Court can rule good service of a preliminary injunction (PI) and order its publication.
• Proper service is crucial for the enforcement of PI orders and the accrual of penalty sums.
• Non-EU companies continuing infringement in the UPC area may face enforcement of UPC penalty payments in other jurisdictions, such as the US.
• Representatives should advise non-UPC companies about the potential cross-border enforcement of UPC decisions.

Tags

• Service
• Preliminary Injunction
• Enforcement
• Non-EU Parties
• Penalty Payment

Related Cases

• UPC CFI 463/2023 – 10x Genomics, Inc. v Curio Bioscience Inc.
• UPC_CFI_1325/2025 – Van Loon v Inverquark
• UPC_CFI_115/2024; UPC_CFI_377/2024 – Hartman v Omni-Pac
• UPC_CFI_181/2025_July23 – Qiagen v bioMérieux
• UPC_CFI_315/2024 – Labrador v bioMérieux