Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite (CFI, 12 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 12 December 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division, acting on delegation from the panel, declared that the steps taken to serve Cardo Systems’ statement of claim (EP 4 240 194) on Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology amount to valid service, despite refusal by the Chinese central authority. The order shows that a purely formal and final refusal does not require transmission to be attempted again.

Question

Where the Chinese central authority twice refuses a request for service under the Hague Convention on a point of form (« Hong Kong » rather than « Hong Kong, China »), can service be treated as completed without a further attempt?

Decision

Yes. Rule 274.1(a)(i) does not apply, since Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 does not cover China: the Hague Convention governs service, and its Article 15(2) applies in full because service at the UPC is a uniform system (paragraphs 6 and 7). The ground of refusal is purely formal, the document having gone to the right defendant, and the reference to « Hong Kong » did not prevent service (paragraphs 9 to 11). As the refusal is serious and final, no new transmission is needed and the period in Article 15(2)(b) need not be observed. Postal service is excluded by China’s objection and email service requires consent (paragraphs 12 to 15). The order is published on the UPC website instead of being served (paragraph 16).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: faced with a purely formal refusal by the Chinese central authority, a claimant may ask the Court to declare that the steps already taken constitute service, without proposing an alternative method.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 41

Rules of Procedure

Rules 273, 274, 275.2 and 276.1

Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 (service)

Arts 3, 5, 6, 7, 10(a) and 15

Case law cited

Mannheim Local Division, 31 July 2024 (CFI 330/2024), NEC v TCL Industrial, Court of Appeal, 29 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_69/2024 and UPC_CoA_70/2024)

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.