Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi H.K. (CFI, ORD_44597/2024, 31 July 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 31 July 2024 (ORD_44597/2024, UPC_CFI_332/2024, ACT_36410/2024), the presiding judge, acting as judge-rapporteur, of the Mannheim Local Division treated as good service on Xiaomi H.K. Limited the steps taken to serve Panasonic’s statement of claim in the action for infringement of EP 2 568 724, where the Hong Kong central authority had refused service by objecting to the defendant’s address being described as « Hong Kong » in the pleadings. The order refuses any censorship of pleadings at the request of the receiving authority and spares the claimant a further attempt under Rule 275.1 RoP.

Question

Where the central authority addressed under the Hague Service Convention refuses service because of how the claimant describes the defendant’s seat, must the Court require a further attempt by another method or at another address before treating the steps taken as good service?

Decision

No. The methods of service under Rules 270 to 274 RoP had been exhausted and the Hague Convention formalities were met (request form in duplicate, Chinese translation). The description of the address is for the claimant to choose: a politically motivated review of content has no place under the Convention, and the Court does not censor or redact pleadings at the request of the receiving authority. As the refusal was serious and final, neither a further attempt nor a waiting period (Article 15(2)(b)) was required, the other routes having no prospect of success. The steps taken constitute good service (Rule 275.2 RoP), the order is published on the Court’s website and sent to the defendant’s representatives in the Munich proceedings, although that dispatch is not a condition of its effect.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: where service is refused over the political description of an address, the claimant need not amend its pleadings and may apply directly for an order under Rule 275.2 RoP.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 41

Rules of Procedure

Rules 270 to 274, 275.1, 275.2 and 276.1

Related decisions

• Panasonic v Xiaomi H.K., 1 August 2024, parallel order of the same Division in the action on another patent.

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.