NEC v TCL Industrial (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2024, 29 July 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 29 July 2024 in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_69/2024 and UPC_CoA_70/2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed NEC Corporation’s appeals against two orders of the Munich Local Division (ORD_6237/2024 and ORD_6607/2024) refusing alternative service on three TCL companies based in China and Hong Kong. Neither service by email on a person not authorised to accept it nor public notice at the Local Division is permitted at this stage, as an attempt through the Hague Convention channels should normally precede any alternative method. The order sets out the route for bringing defendants established outside the Union before the UPC.

Facts and procedure

NEC brought two infringement actions on EP 2 645 714 and EP 3 057 321 before the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_487/2023 and UPC_CFI_498/2023) against seven TCL group companies. The four European defendants were served. The three Asian companies were not. NEC sought leave to serve the Statement of claim by email on a natural person whose name is redacted, or by public notice at the Local Division, and in the alternative by email under Rule 275.1 RoP. The Local Division refused, requiring an actual attempt through the Hague Convention. The Court of Appeal did not communicate the appeals to the Asian companies, which are not yet parties (paragraphs 1 to 15).

The applicable law

The Court relies on Rules 271 to 275 RoP, in particular Rule 274.1(a)(ii), which refers to the Hague Convention for service outside the Contracting Member States, Rule 275.1 and Rule 275.4, which bars a method of service contrary to the law of the place of service. It refers to the second paragraph of Art. 15 of the Hague Convention, Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, Art. 28(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 and the CJEU’s judgment in Weiss und Partner (C-14/07).

Question

May the Statement of claim be served on companies established in China or Hong Kong by email on an unauthorised person, by public notice at the registry or by another alternative method, before any attempt through the Hague Convention?

Decision

Rule 271.1 RoP on electronic service does not apply (paragraphs 16 and 17). The service rules safeguard the rights of the defence before any default decision and are designed to conform with EU law and the Hague Convention (paragraphs 18 to 22). Rule 275.1 RoP includes a requirement of a prior service attempt. Under the second paragraph of Art. 15 of the Convention, an attempt through that channel should normally come first, and NEC gave no reason to shorten the six-month period (paragraphs 26 to 33).

Receipt of the claim by the European defendants cannot be attributed to the Asian companies (paragraphs 34 and 35). Under Rule 275.4 RoP, service must not contravene the law of the place of service: Chinese law requires Chinese translations, allows email only with the recipient’s consent and public notice only as a last resort (paragraph 36). Nothing shows that the designated person is authorised to accept service (paragraph 37). The UPC applies its own rules and is not bound by the practice of some German courts (paragraph 38), and the SEP nature of the dispute makes no difference: willingness to negotiate does not prove knowledge of the claims (paragraph 39). Other methods may be permitted later (paragraphs 40 and 41).

Key points for practice

• Service outside the Union goes first through the Hague Convention, an alternative method being available in principle only after an attempt.
• Service on a group’s European subsidiaries is not service on the companies established outside the Union.
• Any alternative method must be compatible with the law of the place of service (Rule 275.4 RoP).
• Practical point: a claimant targeting Chinese companies should start Hague Convention service at once, with Chinese translations, before seeking an alternative method.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 24(1)(d)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.1, 271.1, 273, 274.1, 275.1, 275.2 and 275.4

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 28(4)

Other provisions

Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, Arts. 10(a) and 15, Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, Arts. 19 and 29

Case law cited

CJEU, 8 May 2008, Weiss und Partner, C-14/07

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.