Overview · Filed: —
UPC_CFI_509/2023
Procedural & sub-applicationsOther Procedural—
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 4
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 275.1 | alternative service when foreign authority refuses | Binding | Rule 275.1 RoP also applies if a foreign authority refuses formal service according to the Hague Service Convention seriously and definitively. |
| 275.2 | confirmation of good service | Binding | 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. |
| 274.1 | methods of service | Binding | 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 |
| 275.4 | service incompatible with law of state | Binding | 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. |
UPC (CFI) · 2
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CFI_332/2024 | service refusal by Chinese authority | Persuasive | 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) |
| UPC_CFI_219/2023 | exhaustion of available service options for defendant | Persuasive | 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). |
courtName.national_DE_OLG · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Higher Regional Court Munich, GRUR-RR 2020, 511 | experience of Chinese authority refusing service | Persuasive | 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) |
UPC Court of Appeal · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CoA_69/2024 | China's opposition to postal service of judicial documents under Hague Convention Art. 10(a) | Binding | 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). |
courtName.other · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article 10(a) Hague Service Convention | postal service of judicial documents abroad | Binding | 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). |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
| Cited in | Date | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| APL_23095/2025 Court of Appeal | Jul 9, 2025 | security for costs | Persuasive | LD Munich 21 January 2025, ACT_597615/2023 UPC_CFI_509/2023, Air up group v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology |