air up group v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology (CFI, ORD_64864/2024, 9 December 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 9 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_508/2023, ACT_597609/2023, App_64018/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division treated as good service the steps taken to serve air up group’s application for provisional measures on Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology, a Chinese company, where transmission to the Chinese central authority more than six months earlier had produced no result. The order fills a gap in Rule 275.2 RoP and allows proceedings against a defendant based in China to move forward without waiting indefinitely for Hague Convention service.

Question

Where service under the Hague Service Convention (Rule 274.1(a)(ii) RoP) fails and no alternative method is available, may the Court treat the steps already taken as good service under Rule 275.2 RoP?

Decision

Yes. Service could not be dispensed with, as no decision without hearing the defendant had been sought (Rule 212.1 RoP). The conditions of Article 15 of the Hague Convention were met: six months had elapsed since transmission on 24 May 2024, reasonable efforts had been made to obtain a certificate, and provisional measures are urgent by nature. Alternative service under Rule 275.1 RoP was not available, as China has objected to postal channels (Article 10(a) of the Convention) and no other place of service was known. Rule 275.2 RoP, which literally covers only a failed alternative method, contains an unintended gap and also applies where service under Rule 274 RoP has failed. Service takes effect on the date of the order and the defendant has fourteen days to respond (Rule 275.3(b) and (c) RoP).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: where a Chinese central authority remains silent, recording every follow-up and letting six months run from transmission lays the ground for an application under Rule 275.2 RoP.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 32(1)(c) and 62

Rules of Procedure

Rules 209.1, 212.1, 270.2, 274.1(a)(ii) and 275.1 to 275.4

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_69/2024, Panasonic v Xiaomi H.K., Mannheim Local Division, UPC_CFI_332/2024, Mannheim Local Division, UPC_CFI_219/2023.

Related decisions

• air up group v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology, 9 January 2025, default decision granting the provisional measures.

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.