air up group v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology (CFI, ORD_68822/2024, 21 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 21 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_509/2023), Panel 1 of the Munich Local Division held that publication on the UPC website of the default decision of 9 January 2025, given in air up group’s provisional measures proceedings against the Chinese company Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology (EP 3 655 341), together with notice to the defendant by e-mail, constitutes good service under Rule 275.2, with effect from the date of the order. The order offers a way forward where the Chinese central authority does not act on requests for service.

Question

Must a fresh attempt be made to serve the default decision under the Hague Service Convention, or can publication on the Court’s website take its place?

Decision

The rules on service must be read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection, so good service must always be possible, at least under Rule 275.2. A fresh attempt under Rule 274 is not required: the Chinese authority, which received the documents on 11 June 2024 and remained inactive for more than six months despite the Registry’s reminders, had in effect refused service, and further steps would be futile. No other place of service was known and China objects to direct postal service (Art. 10(a) of the Hague Convention). Publication on the website, with e-mail notice, was the only available route. Nothing suggested that it contravenes Chinese law (Rule 275.4), although the Court could not verify this. The Registry must publish the order with the parties’ names and the file number.

Key points for practice

• Where a central authority does not process a request for service, the applicant can obtain an order that publication of the decision on the UPC website constitutes service, without a further Hague attempt.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 62

Rules of Procedure

Rules 6.1, 270 to 274, 275.1, 275.2 and 275.4

Other provisions

Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, Arts 5 and 10(a), European Convention on Human Rights, Arts 6 and 13

Case law cited

NEC v TCL, Court of Appeal, 29 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_69/2024), Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_219/2023), ECJ, Case 222/84

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.