UPC CoA 205/2024

Court of Appeal ruled on service of statement of claim on Chinese defendants. Held that a defendant company in China cannot, as a starting point, be served via a group company in a Contracting Member State. Attempts to serve via the Hague Convention must normally be made before alternative service methods are permitted. The appeal concerning service procedure was decided on its merits; no ruling on infringement.

Court of Appeal upheld Hamburg Local Division's refusal to allow service of a statement of claim on Chinese Xiaomi entities (Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc.) via their German/Dutch group companies in Nera Innovations Ltd. v. Xiaomi entities (EP 2 642 632). The court held: (1) service on a Chinese-domiciled defendant cannot be made via a group company in a contracting member state without more, because the corporate separation principle applies; (2) service must first be attempted via the Hague Service Convention (R. 274.1(a)(ii) RoP); (3) alternative service (R. 274.1(b), R. 275 RoP) is available only after Hague Convention attempts.

The Court of Appeal (second panel) addressed Nera Innovations' request for partial withdrawal of its appeal against two of four Xiaomi defendants, establishing principles on when partial withdrawal of an appeal is permissible under R. 265 RoP and whether the other parties have legitimate interests in a full decision.