Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin (CFI, 10 July 2026)
| Date | 10 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Milan (IT) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1902/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-0001902/2025 |
| Parties | Cardo Systems, Ltd. v. Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd., Resosport Limited |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 29 July 2026 : Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin (CFI, 29 July 2026) UPC-CFI-0001902/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
In an order of 10 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_1902/2025), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division aligns the time limits for the defence of the two defendants to Cardo Systems’ infringement action: Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology, served on 23 April 2026, and Resosport Limited, based in Hong Kong and not yet served. The statements of defence and any counterclaim for revocation are to be lodged by 10 September 2026. The order shows how the judge-rapporteur deals with uncertain service outside the EU when the court cannot compel a representative to accept it.
Question
May the judge-rapporteur set a common starting date for the time limit for the defence of two defendants, where one has not yet been served and its representative refuses to accept service?
Decision
Yes. The court cannot require a representative to accept service, since Rule 271.1(c) allows electronic service on a representative only with that representative’s agreement, and the Hong Kong process carries timing uncertainties that would misalign the defendants’ time limits. Under Rules 9.3 and 334(a), which allow a time limit to be extended, even retrospectively, or shortened on a reasoned request, the judge sets 10 June 2026 as the common starting date, subject to Resosport immediately accepting service, on grounds of efficiency, equity, fairness and proportionality. Ziwu’s time limit, which was due to expire on 23 July 2026, is thus extended by about 50 days, despite Cardo’s opposition.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: where several defendants are based outside the EU, a reasoned request under Rule 9.3 can secure a single timetable, in exchange for acceptance of service by the defendant not yet served.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 8.1, 9.3, 23, 271.1(c) and 334(a)
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Patent infringement action.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Parties
- claimantCardo Systems, Ltd.7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantShenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd.2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantResosport Limited2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 10 July 2026 Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin (CFI, 10 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1902/2025
- 29 July 2026 Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin (CFI, 29 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1902/2025
La demande de révision et d'abrègement des délais est rejetée. La date de départ commune et le délai unique de défense fixés par le juge rapporteur sont maintenus.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Le délai de défense des deux défenderesses court du 10 juin 2026, sous réserve de l’acceptation immédiate de la signification par Resosport. Les mémoires en défense sont dus au 10 septembre 2026.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin (CFI, 29 July 2026) cited in this record
- Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology (CFI, 27 April 2026) cited in this record
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.