ICPillar v Arm (CFI, 28 February 2024)
| Date | 28 February 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_495/2023 |
| Registry reference | App_8330/2024 · ORD_10136/2024 · UPC_CFI_495/2023 |
| Parties | ICPillar LLC |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 12 February 2024 : ICPillar v Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. (CFI, 12 February 2024) App_5858/2024 · ORD_7671/2023 · UPC_CFI_495/2023
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
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
- Practical point: where a central authority is slow, courier delivery documented by a bailiff can be validated retroactively under Rule 275.2 RoP, as of the date of delivery.
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
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
- claimantICPillar LLC7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 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.
- 28 February 2024 ICPillar v Arm (CFI, 28 February 2024) Generic application · UPC_CFI_495/2023
- 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
EP3000239mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- ICPillar v Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. (CFI, 12 February 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP3000239 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.