Opens in a new tab

ICPillar v Arm (CFI, 28 February 2024)

Date28 February 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_495/2023
Registry referenceApp_8330/2024 · ORD_10136/2024 · UPC_CFI_495/2023
PartiesICPillar LLC

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 28 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_495/2023, ACT_596432/2023, order no. 10136, App_8330/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division (C. Lignieres), in the infringement action on EP 3 000 239 brought by ICPillar LLC against Arm Limited and other companies, held that the Statement of claim was deemed served on 7 February 2024 on the four defendants established in the United Kingdom, by courier delivery recorded by a bailiff. The order accepts an alternative method of service where the Hague Convention route has not produced results.

Question

After service through the UK central authority failed to be completed, can the claimant have courier delivery of the Statement of claim, recorded by a bailiff, recognised as good service under Rule 275.2 RoP?

Decision

Service by electronic means being impossible, the Registry had sent the Statement of claim to the UK central authority on 16 January 2024, which received it on 26 January without service being effected. ICPillar then had the Statement of claim and the service letter delivered by FedEx and DHL. A bailiff’s report records delivery in person, against signature, on 7 February 2024 at each address. The judge-rapporteur found the request reasoned, since service had still not been effected although the action had been registered on 28 December 2023, that the steps taken respected the rights of the defence and that this alternative method, consistent with the principles of efficiency and fairness in the Preamble, amounted to good service under Rule 275.2.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Preamble (points 4 and 5) and Rules 274.1 and 275.2
Other provisions
Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters

Related decisions

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CFI_495/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 12 February 2024 ICPillar v Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. (CFI, 12 February 2024) Generic application · UPC_CFI_495/2023

    La juge rapporteure autorise la signification par un autre moyen à l'égard d'Arm Poland, la lettre recommandée n'ayant pu être remise, et la refuse pour les sociétés britanniques, la signification par l'autorité centrale étant en cours.

  2. 28 February 2024 ICPillar v Arm (CFI, 28 February 2024) Generic application · UPC_CFI_495/2023
  3. 19 June 2024 ICPillar v ARM (CoA, 19 June 2024) Generic application · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    L'effet suspensif peut être demandé contre une ordonnance relevant de la règle 220.2, mais il est refusé faute de circonstances exceptionnelles, de même que l'accélération de l'appel.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le mémoire en demande est réputé signifié le 7 février 2024 aux quatre défenderesses britanniques, par remise par transporteur constatée par huissier.
Appeal
An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP3000239Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 5 other decision(s): ICPillar v ARM (CFI, 13 December 2024) · ARM v ICPillar (CoA, 7 July 2024) · ICPillar v Arm (CFI, 21 May 2024) · SVF Holdco v ICPillar (CFI, 11 April 2024) · ICPillar v Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. (CFI, 12 February 2024)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.