APL_10370/2024

The Court of Appeal (Panel 2) ruled on service of the statement of claim on Xiaomi defendants in China and Hong Kong in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi (UPC_CoA_86/2024, EP 2 207 270). The Court held that service on a Chinese or HK group company cannot automatically be effected through a related group company in a Contracting Member State — such a company cannot be treated as the registered office, head office, or principal place of business, nor as a permanent or temporary business establishment under R. 271.5(a) RoP. Service attempts in China via the Hague Service Convention must normally be made before alternative service methods or alternative locations under R. 275 RoP are permitted.