ICPillar v Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. (CFI, 12 February 2024)
| Date | 12 February 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_495/2023 |
| Registry reference | App_5858/2024 · ORD_7671/2023 · UPC_CFI_495/2023 |
| Parties | ICPillar LLC v. ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 28 February 2024 : ICPillar v Arm (CFI, 28 February 2024) App_8330/2024 · ORD_10136/2024 · 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 12 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_495/2023, Order no. 7671, Application no. 5858/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division, in ICPillar LLC’s infringement action on EP 3 000 239 against several Arm group companies and other defendants, authorised service by an alternative method (Rule 275.1 RoP) on Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. and refused it for the companies established in the United Kingdom. The order clarifies when ordinary service can be regarded as having failed.
Question
On what conditions may a claimant be authorised to serve the Statement of claim by an alternative method, where a registered letter could not be delivered to a Polish defendant and service in the United Kingdom under the Hague Convention is still under way?
Decision
The judge-rapporteur recalled that Rule 275.1 RoP applies only where service under the ordinary methods could not be effected, and that a method already used by the Court, here the registered letter under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, is not an alternative method. For Arm Poland, the letter not having been delivered, ICPillar was authorised to use one of three methods: a French bailiff under Article 8 of the Regulation, direct contact with a local Polish bailiff, or dispatch by two independent private carriers recorded by a bailiff, these methods being consistent with the law of the place of service (Rule 275.4 RoP). Service is deemed effected on the date of actual delivery at the registered address. For the UK companies, the letter having reached the central authority on 26 January 2024, a delay of ten days is not a failure of service (Rule 274.1(ii) RoP), so the request was dismissed.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a request under Rule 275.1 RoP is premature while service through the Hague Convention central authority is still in progress, it requires an established failure of the ordinary method.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 271.4, 274.1, 275.1 and 275.4
- Regulation (EU) 2020/1784
- Art. 8 and 18
- Other provisions
- Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, French Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 686
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
- defendantARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF HoldcoFollow 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
- 28 February 2024 ICPillar v Arm (CFI, 28 February 2024) Generic application · UPC_CFI_495/2023
Le mémoire en demande est réputé signifié le 7 février 2024 aux quatre défenderesses britanniques, par remise par transporteur constatée par huissier.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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 (CFI, 28 February 2024) cited in this record
- ICPillar (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 (CFI, 28 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.