Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CoA, 6 August 2024)
| Date | 6 August 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Appeal RoP220.2 |
| Registry reference | APL_24585/2024 · ORD_34253/2024 |
| Parties | Nera 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.
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
- A claimant suing a Chinese company must first attempt service under the Hague Convention, with translations, before seeking alternative service.
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
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_173/2024Parties
- defendantXiaomi Inc.28 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantXiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.21 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantNera Innovations Ltd.9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantXiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.32 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantXiaomi Technology Germany GmbH29 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 642 632mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 5 January 2026) cites this decision
- Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 10 July 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 642 632 | Mentioned 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 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.