Hewlett-Packard Development v Andreas Rentmeister (CFI, 2 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 2 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_515/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division held that publishing on the Court’s website its provisional measures order of 19 December 2025, granted to Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. on EP 3 835 965, constitutes good service under Rule 275.2 on Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd., the second defendant, based in China. The ruling mirrors one given the same day against another Chinese company.

Question

Where service of the application on a defendant based in China has failed, must formal service of the provisional measures order be attempted again before an alternative method is accepted?

Decision

Rule 275.2 allows the Court to order that steps already taken by an alternative method constitute good service (paragraph 8). Rule 6.1(a) requires service of the order of 19 December 2025, but since service of the application under Rule 274 failed and nothing suggests it would succeed for the order, a further attempt is unnecessary: futile steps would run counter to effective judicial protection (paragraph 10). The documents sent through the Chinese Central Authority portal on 18 June 2025 were never processed, two inquiries by the Court went unanswered, and the defendant, notified by email at the address on its Amazon seller profile, did not respond (paragraphs 11 and 12). Publication constitutes good service, effective from the date of the order (paragraph 13).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: the Rule 275.2 route, once accepted for the application, can be extended to the order deciding it where service through treaty channels has already failed.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 6.1(a), 274 and 275.2

Case law cited

air up group v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology, Munich Local Division, 21 January 2025, UPC_CFI_509/2023

Related decisions

• Hewlett-Packard Development v Andreas Rentmeister, 19 December 2025, provisional measures order whose service is at issue.
• Hewlett-Packard Development v Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology, 2 February 2026, parallel order in separate proceedings.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.