# News Detail Share now [](https://www.linkedin.com/uas/login?session_redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2FshareArticle%3Fmini%3Dtrue%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fhoyngrokhgroup.com%2Ffr%2Factualites%2Fdetail%2Fserving-chinese-defendants-before-the-upc-a-status-report%26title%3DServing%20Chinese%20defendants%20before%20the%20UPC%3A%20a%20status%20report%26summary%3D "Linkedin") # Serving Chinese defendants before the UPC: a status report 16 mars 2026 Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hot Topic News The first years of the UPC have revealed a persistent procedural obstacle when serving Statements of claim abroad, primarily in China. This article diagnoses the problem and reviews the most important UPC case law. Parties and counsel have shown creativity in seeking solutions and workarounds, with varying degrees of success. ##### **Legal framework** Pursuant to Rule 274.1 (a) (ii) RoP, Statements of claim destined for China are served by the UPC Registry under the Hague Service Convention (“**HSC**”). The basic principle underlying the HSC is quite straightforward: each State designates a Central Authority that attempts service on behalf of foreign registries and, once completed, issues a certificate of service. The HSC also provides for methods of informal delivery, and delivery by post. China made important reservations to the former, requiring defendants’ explicit consent *ex ante* for service by e-mail or similar informal means, and fully opposed to the latter. In practice, this leaves formal service according to the procedure set out above (*see* Article 5.1 (a) HSC) as the only viable route. The UPC respects these reservations.[\[1\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn1) Statements of claim to be served in China must be furnished in duplicate and either written in Chinese, or accompanied by a Chinese translation (*see* Articles 3.2 and 5.3 HSC). Article 15.2 HSC provides an escape in case of significant delays in service by Central Authorities. For proceedings on the merits, it requires that the document was sent according to the HSC process, that despite reasonable efforts, no certificate of service was obtained for at least six months since dispatch, and that national law allows judges to give judgments even when no certificate of service or delivery has been received. Most UPC countries provide for the latter possibility, including Belgium, France, Germany and The Netherlands. If the conditions are fulfilled, a national judge may give judgment without any certificate of service. In urgent PI proceedings, the six-month term may be disregarded.[\[2\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn2) ##### **Diagnosis of the problem** Service in China is often lengthy (usually 6-18 months), with registries receiving no answers or confirmations from the Chinese Central Authority (the International Legal Cooperation Center, “**ILCC**”). Additionally, the ILCC readily refuses service. In *Panasonic v. Xiaomi* before the Local Division (“**LD**”) of Mannheim[\[3\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn3), the ILCC had refused service because certain attachments were not duplicated, and because the defendant’s address was indicated as ‘Hong Kong’, rather than ‘Hong Kong SAR, China’. The LD criticised this approach, finding that “*censorship of content based on political considerations has no place in the Hague Service Convention*”[\[4\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn4). ##### **Little room for alternatives** Given the uncertainty of HSC service, claimants have attempted to serve alternative actors. UPC case law shows that this is rarely accepted. In its *Daedalus v. Xiaomi* decision[\[5\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn5), the Court of Appeal specified that serving Chinese defendants via a company within the same group in UPC territory is only possible when the legal person has its statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business there, in reference to Rule 271.5 RoP. The UPC is even stricter regarding service on lawyers of Chinese defendants situated in more convenient nations. In *MED-EL v. Nurotron*[\[6\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn6), the LD of Hamburg ruled that lawyers authorised to represent a party in PI proceedings are not automatically authorised to accept service of a Statement of claim in the subsequent infringement proceedings, effectively squashing this potential workaround. ##### **Hierarchy of methods of service** UPC case law holds the hierarchy of methods of service in Rules 274-275 RoP in high regard.[\[7\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn7) Alternative methods of service (for example, at a European trade fair) are only available after attempting HSC service in China. Steps cannot be skipped. ##### **Openings in UPC case law** Despite the strict adherence to the hierarchy, Local Divisions try to mitigate its delaying effects: In *air up v. Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology*[\[8\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn8), the LD of Munich accepted the application of Article 15.2 HSC after more than six months of silence from the ILCC. Interestingly, it identified “*an unintended gap*” in Rule 275.2 RoP, which allows for unsuccessful attempts at alternative service to be approved as good service. However, in this case, the LD judged that there were no alternative methods or places available, especially in light of China’s reservations to the HSC discussed above. The Court decided to fill the gap in Rule 275.2 RoP, ruling that also an unsuccessful attempt of service *under Rule 274 RoP* (for China: HSC service), can constitute good service. No further efforts were required. Similarly, in *Panasonic v. Xiaomi*[\[9\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn9), the LD of Mannheim found that prior steps to attempt HSC service, in case of a political refusal to serve, can constitute good service, *even before* the expiry of the six-month term in Article 15.2 HSC. No further efforts were required. In *Avient v. Xingi*[\[10\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn10), the LD of The Hague ruled that the six-month term in Article 15.2 HSC does not stand in the way of ordering alternative service before the expiry of that term. After nearly four months without response from the Chinese authorities, it ruled that service under Rule 274 RoP could not be effected, and ordered alternative service at the A+A Trade Fair in Düsseldorf. In *igus v. Whale Technology*[\[11\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn11), the LD of Düsseldorf stated, in reference to its earlier *M-A-S v. Altech* case law[\[12\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn12) (in respect to Turkey), that a trade fair stand can constitute a ‘temporary place of business’ as soon as goods are advertised for delivery there (adding that this can be assumed absent indications to the contrary). It thus accepted service at the Hannover Messe trade fair under Rule 271.5 RoP. Finally, the UPC allows certain alternative ways of establishing service: In *NEC v. TCL*[\[13\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn13), the LD of Munich received a preliminary objection from Chinese defendant TCL, which explicitly stated that it had received the complaint on 11 May 2024. The LD ruled that service was effective as of that date. The defendant’s own written statement constituted sufficient proof of service, and there was no need to wait for a certificate from the ILCC. In *JingAo Solar v. Chint / Astronergy*[\[14\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftn14), the parties agreed on a fictitious date of service, in view of the potentially time-consuming and difficult service in China, which the LD of Hamburg accepted. ##### **Conclusion** Serving Chinese defendants before the UPC remains slow, formalistic and politically sensitive. The Court has insisted on respecting the Hague Service Convention and the hierarchy of service methods in the Rules of Procedure, leaving little room for procedural shortcuts. Yet the case law also reveals a certain pragmatism. Where service efforts have little prospect of success, are obstructed for political reasons, or are acknowledged by the defendant itself, Local Divisions show a willingness to provide solutions. Claimants must in principle always attempt a potentially lengthy formal service, but once they have demonstrably done so, the UPC will not allow Chinese obstacles to paralyse the proceedings. Article by [Xander Cauwelier](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/notre-equipe/experts-juridiques/xander-cauwelier) --- [\[1\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref1) *See* CoA 29 July 2024, UPC\_CoA\_69/2024 and 70/2024, *NEC v. TCL.* [\[2\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref2) *See* LD Düsseldorf 16 October 2025, UPC\_CFI 449/2025, *HP vs Zhuhai*. [\[3\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref3) LD Mannheim 31 July 2024, UPC\_CFI\_330/2024, *Panasonic v. Xiaomi*. [\[4\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref4) Free translation of: “*Eine inhaltliche Zensur aufgrund politischer Opportunitätserwägungen hat im Haager Zustellungsübereinkommen keinen Platz*”. [\[5\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref5) CoA 5 August 2024, UPC\_CoA\_183/2024, *Daedalus v. Xiaomi and MediaTek*. [\[6\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref6) LD Hamburg 25 August 2025, UPC\_CFI\_688/2025, *MED-EL v. Nurotron*. [\[7\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref7) *See* CoA 29 July 2024, UPC\_CoA\_69/2024 and 70/2024, *NEC v. TCL*. [\[8\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref8) LD Munich 9 December 2024, UPC\_CFI\_508/2023, *air up v. Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology*. [\[9\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref9) LD Mannheim 31 July 2024, UPC\_CFI\_330/2024, *Panasonic v. Xiaomi*. [\[10\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref10) LD The Hague 24 October 2025, UPC\_CFI\_475/2025, *Avient v. Xingi*. [\[11\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref11) LD Düsseldorf 5 August 2025, UPC\_CFI\_318/2025, *igus GmbH v Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.* [\[12\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref12) LD Düsseldorf 17 June 2024, UPC\_CFI\_316/2024, *M-A-S v. Altech*. [\[13\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref13) LD Munich 6 Aug 2024, UPC\_CFI\_498/2023, *NEC v. TCL*. [\[14\]](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/fr/actualites/detail#_ftnref14) LD Hamburg 9 May 2025, UPC\_CFI\_429/2024, *JingAo Solar v. Chint / Astronergy*.