Opens in a new tab

Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 6 August 2024)

Date6 August 2024
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal RoP220.2
Registry referenceAPL_24585/2024 · ORD_34253/2024
PartiesNera Innovations Ltd. v. Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany 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

In an order of 6 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_205/2024), the Court of Appeal dismissed Nera Innovations’ appeal against the order of the Hamburg Local Division of 24 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_173/2024, EP 2 642 632), which had refused service of the statement of claim on Xiaomi Communications and Xiaomi Inc., both established in China, through their German subsidiary Xiaomi Technology Germany. The appeal was heard together with a similar case (UPC_CoA_183/2024). The order sets the method: for a defendant established in China, an attempt at service under the Hague Convention should normally come before any alternative route.

Question

May a statement of claim be served on a company established in China through a company of the same group established in a Contracting Member State, under Rule 271.5(a)?

Decision

Rule 271.5(a) covers only companies with their statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business within the Contracting Member States, service outside that territory being governed by Rules 273 and 274 (paragraphs 33 and 34). A group company cannot simply be treated as the seat or a place of business of the Chinese defendant, given the principle of separate legal personality and liability common to the laws of the Member States (paragraphs 43 and 44), and a subsidiary’s authority to accept service on behalf of its parent cannot be presumed (paragraph 28). Regulation 2020/1784 does not apply, so the Hague Convention does (Rule 274.1(a)(ii), paragraph 45), and service by its methods should normally be attempted before service under Rule 274.1(b) or Rule 275 (paragraph 42). Alternative service remains possible at a later stage (paragraph 47).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 24(1)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 270, 271.5, 273, 274 and 275

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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.
First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_173/2024

Parties

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
Appeal RoP220.2
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
L’appel est rejeté : l’acte introductif d’instance ne peut être signifié aux sociétés chinoises par l’intermédiaire de leur filiale allemande, une tentative selon la Convention de La Haye devant en principe précéder toute voie alternative.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_173/2024).
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 642 632Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 10 July 2025) · Xiaomi v Nera Innovations (CoA, 3 August 2026) · Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 30 June 2026) · Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 28 April 2025) · Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 30 December 2024) · Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 4 June 2024)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.