UPC CoA 86/2024

Court of Appeal ruled on service of statement of claim on defendants in China and Hong Kong. Held that Chinese and Hong Kong defendants cannot be served via group companies in Contracting Member States. Service via the Hague Convention must normally be attempted first before alternative methods under R.275 RoP are permitted. No ruling on infringement merits.

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.

The Court of Appeal issued an order clarifying the date of service for appeal documents, establishing that service rules applicable at first instance continue to apply at the appeal level in proceedings involving Panasonic and the Xiaomi group entities.

The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Rian Kalden) clarified the date of service of the Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal in the proceedings between Panasonic and Xiaomi. The Court held that, in appeal proceedings, service rules (Rules 270-279 RoP) apply mutatis mutandis. Where R.271.1 RoP applied at first instance (electronic address provided or representative accepted service), further service—including in appeal proceedings—must be effected through the UPC CMS. The headnote confirms that appeal service follows the same electronic system as first-instance service.