air up group v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology (CFI, ORD_64876/2024, 9 December 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 9 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_509/2023, ACT_597615/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division held that the steps already taken to bring air up group GmbH’s application for provisional measures (EP 3 897 305) to the attention of Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. amounted to good service under Rule 275.2, although service in China under the Hague Convention had not succeeded. An identical order was made the same day in the parallel proceedings UPC_CFI_508/2023 (EP 3 655 341).

Question

Can an unsuccessful attempt at service in China under the Hague Convention amount to good service where no other method is available?

Decision

The application had to be served under the Hague Convention (Rules 209.1, 270.2 and 274.1(a)(ii)). The defendant did not consent to electronic service and the Chinese authority, seized in June 2024, issued no certificate despite two status inquiries. Non-processing for over six months without apparent reason amounts to a serious refusal and opens Rule 275.1, but no alternative method was legally possible: China objects to postal service (Art. 10(a)), Rule 275.4 excludes methods contrary to local law, and no other place was known. Rule 275.2, which refers only to failed alternative methods, contains an unintended gap, so a failed Rule 274 attempt may be treated as good service. Service takes effect on the date of the order, and the defendant has fourteen days to object.

Key points for practice

• In urgent matters, the applicant need not wait indefinitely for the Chinese authority: six months without processing is enough to open Rules 275.1 and 275.2.
• Practical point: document the follow-up requests to the foreign authority and the absence of any lawful alternative method before applying for such an order.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 32(1)(c) and Art. 62

Rules of Procedure

Rules 209.1, 270.2, 274.1(a)(ii), 275.1, 275.2, 275.3 and 275.4

Hague Service Convention

Art. 5, Art. 10(a) and Art. 15

Case law cited

Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_69/2024), Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_332/2024), Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_219/2023)

Related decisions

• air up group, 9 December 2024, parallel order in proceedings UPC_CFI_508/2023.

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.