Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi (CoA, 6 August 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 5 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_183/2024), the Court of Appeal dismissed Daedalus Prime’s appeal against the order of the Hamburg Local Division of 18 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_169/2024, EP 2 792 100), which had refused service of the statement of claim on Xiaomi Communications and Xiaomi Inc., established in China, through Xiaomi Technology Germany, and on MediaTek, established in Taiwan, through MediaTek Germany. The appeal was heard together with a similar case (UPC_CoA_205/2024). The order distinguishes China, a party to the Hague Convention, from Taiwan, which has not acceded to it.

Question

May a statement of claim be served on companies established in China or Taiwan through group companies established in Germany, under Rule 271.5(a)?

Decision

Rule 271.5(a) applies only to companies with their statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business within the Contracting Member States (paragraphs 36 and 37). A group company cannot be treated as the defendant’s seat or place of business, given the principle of separation of liability common to the company laws of the Member States (paragraphs 44 and 45), and a subsidiary’s authority to receive documents for its parent cannot be presumed (paragraph 29). Service is therefore governed by Rules 273 and 274.1: the Hague Convention for the Chinese companies (Rule 274.1(a)(ii)) and, for MediaTek, since Taiwan has not acceded to that Convention, diplomatic or consular channels from Germany, the State of the division’s sub-registry (Rule 274.1(a)(iii), paragraph 46). Service by those routes should normally be attempted before service under Rule 274.1(b) or Rule 275, which remains available later (paragraphs 43 and 48).

Key points for practice

• For a defendant established in Taiwan, service goes through diplomatic or consular channels from the Member State of the sub-registry of the division seised.
• Having a group subsidiary in a Contracting Member State does not dispense with the international service routes.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 24(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 271.5, 273, 274 and 275

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.