M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz v Altech Makina (CFI, 17 June 2024)

Date	17 June 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_36031/2024 · ORD_36068/2024
Parties	M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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 17 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_316/2024, App_36031/2024, ACT_35545/2024), the Düsseldorf Local Division, acting through its presiding judge, ordered that the infringement claim on EP 2 061 575 B1 lodged on 14 June 2024 by M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH be served on the Turkish defendant Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi at its stand at the PRS Europe trade fair in Amsterdam on 19 and 20 June 2024. The order gives claimants a fast route to service on a defendant established outside the Union.

Question

Can a trade fair stand located in a Contracting Member State be a temporary place of business at which the statement of claim may be served under Rule 271.5(a) RoP?

Decision

Yes. Rule 271.5(a) RoP allows service at any place in the Contracting Member States where a company has a permanent or temporary place of business. A trade fair stand may qualify as a temporary place of business where, as is normally the case, it also serves to advertise deliveries. Nothing suggested otherwise here, where the allegedly infringing embodiment was on display at the stand. Service was ordered at stand G42 of the Messe Amsterdam, the costs of that service to be paid directly by the claimant for the time being.

Key points for practice

Practical point: where the defendant is established outside the Contracting Member States, its presence at a trade fair in one of them allows the claimant to seek service at the stand, provided the division is seised early enough before the event.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rule 271.5(a)

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.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantM-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbHFollow 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

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande en contrefaçon peut être signifiée à la défenderesse turque sur son stand du salon PRS Europe à Amsterdam, un stand de salon pouvant constituer un établissement temporaire au sens de la règle 271.5(a).
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.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 061 575 B1 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 061 575 B1`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz v Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticar	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.