UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht:

UPC_CFI_509/2023

Prozessuale & UnteranträgeSonstige prozessuale
Dieser Fall zitiert
In den Entscheidungen dieses Falls zitierte Quellen.

Verfahrensordnung · 4

QuelleRechtsfrageBindungskraftAuszug
275.1alternative service when foreign authority refusesBindendRule 275.1 RoP also applies if a foreign authority refuses formal service according to the Hague Service Convention seriously and definitively.
275.2confirmation of good serviceBindendAccording 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.
274.1methods of serviceBindendan 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
275.4service incompatible with law of stateBindendAttention 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.

UPC (Erstinstanz) · 2

QuelleRechtsfrageBindungskraftAuszug
UPC_CFI_332/2024service refusal by Chinese authorityÜberzeugendit 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)
UPC_CFI_219/2023exhaustion of available service options for defendantÜberzeugendSuch 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).

courtName.national_DE_OLG · 1

QuelleRechtsfrageBindungskraftAuszug
Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2020, 511experience of Chinese authority refusing serviceÜberzeugendit 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)

UPC-Berufungsgericht · 1

QuelleRechtsfrageBindungskraftAuszug
UPC_CoA_69/2024China's opposition to postal service of judicial documents under Hague Convention Art. 10(a)BindendChina 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).

courtName.other · 1

QuelleRechtsfrageBindungskraftAuszug
Article 10(a) Hague Service Conventionpostal service of judicial documents abroadBindendChina 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).
Zitiert in
Spätere UPC-Entscheidungen, die diesen Fall zitieren.
Zitiert inDatumRechtsfrageBindungskraftAuszug
APL_23095/2025

Court of Appeal

9. Juli 2025security for costsÜberzeugendLD Munich 21 January 2025, ACT_597615/2023 UPC_CFI_509/2023, Air up group v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology