1. Key takeaways
Mandatory requirement of R. 275.2 RoP is a previous attempt to effect service in accordance with R. 270 to 274 RoP
R. 270 to 274 RoP do not provide for the possibility of service at a place of business within the Contracting Member States for defendants having their seat outside thereof; R. 271.5 RoP allows for service at a place of business only for defendants having their seat within a Contracting Member State.
R. 275.2 RoP cannot be interpreted as permitting alternative service without first having attempted service in accordance with the applicable principles for service abroad.
R. 275.2 RoP is an exceptional provision: Only if service was attempted in accordance with sections 1 and 2 but was unsuccessful and alternative service was then ordered on request in accordance with R. 275.1 RoP, R. 275.2 RoP applies. If the alternative service ordered was also unsuccessful, it opens up the possibility in the individual case, as ultima ratio, of allowing steps already taken to suffice service.
R. 275.2 RoP does not allow to disregard the international treaties binding the Contracting Member States, such as the Hague Service Convention, and to consider service to have been effected on the basis of an imputation of knowledge within a corporation.
2. Division
LD Mannheim
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_219/2023
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement Action
5. Parties
Panasonic Holding Corporation vs. Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 568 724
7. Jurisdictions
Place jurisdictions
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 275 RoP
To view the full article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.