Koninklijke Philips v Edrich (CFI, 27 September 2023)

Date	27 September 2023
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_62/2023
Registry reference	ORD_576850/2023 · UPC_CFI_62/2023
Parties	Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Edrich u.a.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

5 July 2023 : Koninklijke Philips v S.G.E (CFI, 5 July 2023) ACT_463961/2023 · UPC_CFI_62/2023
3 January 2024 : Koninklijke Philips v Edrich (CFI, 3 January 2024) APP_598024/2023 · UPC_CFI_62/2023

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 order of 27 September 2023 (UPC_CFI_62/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division partly granted Koninklijke Philips’ application under Rule 275.2 RoP to validate service of its statement of claim on Belkin International (United States), Belkin Limited and two of its directors (United Kingdom). In this parallel action, the order follows the ruling given the same day in UPC_CFI_5/2023: delivery to the US registered agent, courier delivery and service by post arranged by the claimant are validated, and service on a director counts as service on his company, the email to the group’s chief legal officer and delivery to the lawyer acting only for the German defendants are not.

Question

Which alternative methods of service can be validated under Rule 275.2 RoP, and with effect from which date?

Decision

Rule 275.2 RoP may be applied while an ordinary service attempt is still pending. An email to a person not authorised to accept service is not service (point 1). Service on the first defendant, a director of Belkin Limited, amounts to service on that company as of 23 July 2023 (point 2). Knowledge cannot be presumed from group links. Only the steps arranged by the claimant are validated, as of 21 and 23 August 2023, with no incompatibility shown with local law (point 3, Rule 275.4 RoP). The now differing deadlines for the defence can only be aligned on application (Rule 9.3 RoP).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a co-defendant’s knowledge of the claim is not inferred from group links, a legal relationship allowing imputation or concrete circumstances are required.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.3, 270 to 274, 271.6(b), 275.2 and 275.4

Related decisions

Philips IP Ventures v Edrich, 27 September 2023, identical order of the same day in UPC_CFI_5/2023.

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

Koninklijke Philips v S.G.E (CFI, 2023-07-05), 5 July 2023
Koninklijke Philips v Edrich u.a (CFI, 2024-01-03), 3 January 2024

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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_62/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantKoninklijke Philips N.V.28 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantEdrich u.a4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

5 July 2023 Koninklijke Philips v S.G.E (CFI, 5 July 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_62/2023
Le juge rapporteur invite la demanderesse à remédier, dans cette procédure aussi, aux irrégularités de sa demande comme dans la pièce BP 8.
27 September 2023 Koninklijke Philips v Edrich (CFI, 27 September 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_62/2023
3 January 2024 Koninklijke Philips v Edrich (CFI, 3 January 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_62/2023
La division locale de Munich proroge au 15 janvier 2024 le délai de réplique de Koninklijke Philips et réduit d'autant le délai de duplique sur la demande reconventionnelle en nullité.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge rapporteur valide au titre de la règle 275.2 les remises organisées par la demanderesse et la signification à un administrateur pour sa société, mais refuse le courriel adressé à la directrice juridique et la remise à un avocat non mandaté.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Koninklijke Philips v Edrich (CFI, 3 January 2024) cited in this record
Philips IP Ventures v Edrich (CFI, 27 September 2023) cited in this record
Koninklijke Philips v S.G.E (CFI, 5 July 2023) cited in this record

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.

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.