Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 18 April 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 18 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_169/2024), the Hamburg Local Division, in Daedalus Prime’s infringement action based on EP 2 792 100, refused to allow the statement of claim to be served on Xiaomi Communications and Xiaomi Inc. (China) and on MediaTek (Taiwan) through their German subsidiaries. Service must first be attempted under the Hague Service Convention for the Chinese companies and through diplomatic or consular channels for the Taiwanese company. Leave to appeal was granted. The order is relevant to any claimant suing non-European groups before the UPC.

Question

Can a statement of claim be served on companies established outside the Contracting Member States at the premises of their German subsidiaries, as a place of business within the meaning of Rule 271.5(a) RoP?

Decision

Rule 271.5 belongs to the section on service within the Contracting Member States. Service outside those states is governed by Rules 273 and 274, which do not provide for service at a place of business or on a legally separate subsidiary (paragraph 1). The subsidiaries relied on are independent legal entities with their own management, and the Rules have no equivalent of the German concept of establishment (Section 21 ZPO). Following the Mannheim Local Division, Rule 274.1(b) sets a hierarchy: China is not covered by Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 but is a party to the Hague Convention, which must therefore be tried, for Taiwan, in the absence of any convention, diplomatic or consular channels apply. The UPC is bound by international agreements (Art. 24(1)(d) UPCA), and an attempt at proper service is an indispensable prerequisite for a decision on the merits. Only if it fails may an alternative method be authorised under Rule 275 (paragraph 2). The claimant must supply the necessary documents, including Chinese translations.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: against defendants in China or Taiwan, plan from the outset for the translations and time required for international service, service on a European subsidiary is only an option after conventional routes have failed, under Rule 275 RoP.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 24(1)(d) and 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.2, 224.1(b), 264, 271.5(a), 273, 274 and 275

Case law cited

Mannheim Local Division, 8 December 2023, UPC_CFI_223/2023, confirmed by the panel on 9 February 2024 (appeal UPC_CoA_86/2024).

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.