Local Division Munich
UPC_CFI_508/2023
ACT_597609/2023
App_64018/2024

Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
Local Division Munich
issued on December 9th 2024

Headnotes:
1. Rule 275.1 RoP also applies if a foreign authority refuses formal service
according to the Hague Service Convention seriously and definitively. A serious
refusal of service is also given if a request for service is not processed for more
than six months without any apparent reason.
2. To be considered as an alternative method of service (Rule 275.1 RoP), the
method must be factually and legally possible.
3. According to Rule 275.2 RoP, an unsuccessful attempt to serve documents by
means of Rule 274.1 a) (ii) RoP usually is not acceptable as good service. Only
if an attempt of service under Rule 274 RoP has failed and service by an
alternative method or at an alternative place is neither possible nor reasonable,
the court may order that an unsuccessful attempt of service under Rule 274 RoP
is good service.

APPLICANT
air up group GmbH, Friedenstraße 22a, 81671 Munich, Germany
represented by: Jan Boesing

DEFENDANT
Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd., A09-3, No.9, Chentian
Dashigang S.Road, Huangshi Street, Baiyun District, Guangshou, China

PATENT AT ISSUE
EP 3 655 341

PANEL/DIVISION
Panel 1 of the Local Division Munich

DECIDING JUDGE/S
This order has been issued by the judge-rapporteur Tobias Pichlmaier

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
English

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Application for preliminary measures; service

SUMMARY OF FACTS
The proceedings concern an application for preliminary measures. The defendant is
domiciled in China. The applicant has not requested for an ex-parte proceeding.
Therefore, the service of the application at the defendant's domicile was arranged.
The history of service is as follows:
27/12/2023 Applicant files application for interim measures and pays court fees
04/01/2024 Court’s registry starts preparations for the formal service of the
application in China according to Article 5 (1) of the Hague Service
Convention
02/02/2024 In order to speed up the service, Applicant at the suggestion of the
Court’s registry by email asks Mr Andy Long whether informal service of
the application by email would be accepted on a voluntary basis (Article
5 (2) of the Hague Service Convention); due to the pre-litigation
correspondence with Mr Andy Long this approach was promising; the
email remains unanswered
21/02/2024 In order to speed up the service, Court’s registry asks Mr Andy Long by
email to indicate whether service of the application by email is accepted
on a voluntary basis; also this email remains unanswered
07/03/2024 Court’s registry requests for the required copies and translations for
formal service in China
02/05/2024 Submission of the required copies and translations by the applicant after
there were considerable difficulties in having all the documents
translated in a short time
24/05/2024 Posting of the service documents by registry requiring the defendant to
lodge an Objection to the Application for provisional measures within a
time limit of two weeks from the service of the documents
11/06/2024 Receipt of the service documents by the competent authority in China
according to the tracking number
04/07/2024 Court’s registry sends an inquiry to the competent Chinese authority
regarding the status of service; no answer from the Chinese authority
received
11/07/2024 Court’s registry informs Applicant about the date of service of the
application to the Chinese authorities (11/06/2024).
23/10/2024 Court’s registry sends another inquiry to the competent Chinese
authority regarding the status of service
24/10/2024 Request from the competent Chinese authority to send the service
documents for these proceedings again by email
08/11/2024 Court’s registry sends the service documents combined with another
request for further feedback on the status of service
18/11/2024 Information from the competent Chinese authority that the service
documents have been submitted to the Supreme Court for further
process

REQUEST
Applicant requests the court to find
I. The steps already taken to bring the request for preliminary injunction in the
proceedings ACT_597609/2023 to the attention of Defendant constitute
good service pursuant to R. 275.2 RoP. Service shall be deemed effective
as of the date of this order.
II. The order according to item I. is 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 published on the website.

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER
1. Service requirements
Where an application is made under Article 62 UPCA, it is necessary to serve
the application to the defendant to give him the possibility to lodge an objection
to the application for provisional measures within a time limit to be specified. The
requirement of service arises from Rule 209.1, 270.2 RoP and Article 32 (1) (c)
UPCA.
Service of the application may only be waived if the Court orders provisional
measures without the defendant having been heard (Rule 212.1 RoP); no such
application has been made in the present case.
2. Attempt of service in accordance with Rule 274.1 RoP
If the defendant is domiciled in China, an application for preliminary measures is
to be served according to the Hague Service Convention (Rule 274.1 (a) (ii)
RoP).
According to Article 5 of the Hague Service Convention, both formal and informal
service is possible. In the case of informal service, the service documents may
also be served by electronic means, for example by email, provided that the law
in the receiving state does not object to such a form of service. China allows
service by electronic means such as email with the consent of the recipient
(UPC_CoA_69/2024). Both formal and voluntary informal service are admissible
methods under the Hague Service Convention and thus fall under Rule 274.1
RoP.
Since this is an application for preliminary measures, Court’s registry initially tried
to effect informal service according to Article 5 (2) of the Hague Service
Convention in order to expedite the service.
Subsequently, Court’s Registry arranged formal service in accordance with
Article 5 (1) of the Hague Service Convention by transmitting the service
documents to the competent Chinese authority on 24 May 2024. According to
the tracking number, the service documents were received by the competent
authority in China on 11 June 2024. In the correspondence conducted with the
Chinese authority, the latter never claimed that the documents had not arrived.
3. Failure of service in accordance with Rule 274.1 RoP
In the present case, neither an informal nor a formal service in accordance with
Rule 274.1 (a) (ii) RoP and Article 5 of the Hague Service Convention could be
effected: Consent to an informal service could not be obtained, the formal service
has not yet been effected.
According to Article 15 of the Hague Service Convention each Contracting State
shall be free to declare that the judge may give judgment even if no certificate of
service or delivery has been received, if all the following conditions are fulfilled:
a) the document was transmitted by one of the methods provided for in
this Convention,
b) a period of time of not less than six months, considered adequate by
the judge in the particular case, has elapsed since the date of the
transmission of the document,
c) no certificate of any kind has been received, even though every
reasonable effort has been made to obtain it through the competent
authorities of the State addressed.
On this basis, the following can be stated here:
a. Court’s Registry transmitted the service documents to the competent
Chinese authority on 24 May 2024. The service documents were
received by the relevant authority in China.
However, according to the Hague Service Convention, it is not the
receipt of the documents that is decisive for the period specified in Article
15 (2) b), but their transmission. Consequently, for the purposes of
Article 15 (2) of the Hague Service Convention, it is not important
whether the defendant actually received the document and thus had an
effective opportunity to take note of the contents of the document
(HCCH, Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention,
2016, para. 315).

Until today, no certificate according to Article 6 of the Hague Service
Convention has been received from the competent Chinese authority.
b. The Court has to realise that more than six months have elapsed since
the date of the transmission of the documents to the competent Chinese
authority.
c. The Court considers it adequate to give a judgment in the present case
after the expiry of six months since the date of the transmission of the
documents. This is justified in this case for two reasons:
(1.) The subject matter of the proceedings is a request for preliminary
measures. This is therefore an urgent matter. The Hague Service
Convention itself provides in Article 15 (3) that the court is not
prevented by Article 15 from ordering preliminary measures in
urgent cases.
(2.) Due to the known handling of requests for formal service by the
competent Chinese authority, it is not to be expected that the
request for service will be successful if further delay occurs. It is
not only the experience of European national courts (e.g. Higher
Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2020, 511), but also of the
Unified Patent Court (LD Mannheim, UPC_CFI_332/2024), that
requests for service from the Chinese authority in many cases are
either not forwarded at all or objected to and returned.
d. Every reasonable effort has been made to obtain a proof of
delivery through the competent Chinese authorities. Twice an
inquiry to the respective Chinese authority was sent regarding the
status of service.
4. Alternative attempt of service under Rule 275.1 RoP
If service in accordance with Rules 270-274 RoP is unsuccessful, an attempt
must be made, if possible, to effect service by an alternative method or at an
alternative place (Rule 275.1 RoP). Rule 275.1 RoP also applies if the foreign
authority refuses service seriously and definitively (divergent: LD Mannheim,
UPC_CFI_332/2024). A serious refusal of service can also be assumed if a
request for service is not processed for more than six months without any
apparent reason.
The Rules of Procedure do not provide for an exception to the requirement of
alternative service (Rule 275.1 RoP). Such an exception would also not be in line
with the apparent intention of the provisions on service to exhaust all available
options to give the defendant the opportunity to take note of the application and
to defend himself (correctly LD Mannheim UPC_CFI_219/2023). In view of this,
it seems inappropriate to penalise the defendant by not making further service
attempts if the foreign authority refuses service in violation of the Hague Service
Convention.
However, a prerequisite for further service attempts is that such attempts are
possible at all. To be considered as an alternative method of service (Rule 275.1
RoP), the method must be factually and legally possible. An attempt of alternative
service can only be dispensed with if there is no legally and factually possible
alternative for service.
a. Service by an alternative method is not possible in the present case.
Both the applicant and the court have tried unsuccessfully to effect service of the
application both formally and informally.
No other admissible alternative means of service are apparent; in particular,
China has opposed to send judicial documents directly to persons in China by
postal channels (Article 10 (a) of the Hague Service Convention; see
UPC_CoA_69/2024).
Attention is drawn to Rule 275.4 RoP in this context, which does not allow the
order of an alternative method of service that is incompatible with the law of the
state in which service is to be effected. The Court is neither aware nor can it
reasonably be expected to find out whether further service methods such as
service by public notice (a method that is provided for example by German
national law, but not by the RoP) is compatible with Chinese law.

b. Service at another place is also not possible. No other place is known where
the application could be served.
c. Further delay caused by service by an alternative method or at an alternative
place would also be unreasonable in view of the fact that these are proceedings
for preliminary measures. The present case shows that the urgency of a
provisional measure is difficult to reconcile with the long duration of service
abroad.
5. Confirmation of good service
Under Rule 275.2, it may be ordered that steps already taken to communicate
the statement of claim to the defendant by an alternative method or at an
alternative place constitute good service. According to the clear wording of Rule
275.2 RoP (“…steps already taken to bring the Statement of claim to the attention
of the defendant by an alternative method or at an alternative place…”), only an
(unsuccessful) attempt to serve the document by an alternative method or at an
alternative place may be approved as good service. By contrast, an unsuccessful
attempt to serve documents by means of Rule 274.1 a) (ii) RoP usually is not
acceptable as good service under Rule 275.2 RoP.
In the view taken here, Rule 275.2 RoP contains an unintended gap: If an attempt
of service under Rule 274 RoP has failed and service by an alternative method
or at an alternative place is neither possible nor reasonable, the court may order
that also an unsuccessful attempt of service under Rule 274 RoP shall constitute
good service.

ORDER
1. The steps already taken to bring the request for preliminary injunction in the
proceedings ACT_597609/2023 to the attention of Defendant constitute good
service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP.
2. Service shall be deemed effective as of the date of this order (Rule 275.3 (b)
RoP).
3. The Objection to the application for provisional measures is to file within fourteen
days (Rule 275.3 (c) RoP).
4. The registry shall publish this order (including the names of the parties and the
file number) on the Court’s website.