Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi H.K. (CFI, ORD_44601/2024, 31 July 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 31 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_330/2024, ACT_36396/2024, ORD_44601/2024), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division held that the steps already taken to bring Panasonic Holdings’ Statement of Claim to the attention of Xiaomi H.K. Limited, based in Hong Kong, constitute good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, in the infringement action on EP 3 096 315. The Hong Kong central authority had returned the documents, objecting to the words « Hong Kong » in the party designation. Separate orders to the same effect were made in other severed proceedings between the same parties.

Question

Must service be attempted again, or an alternative method first tried under Rule 275.1 RoP, where the requested authority definitively refuses service under the Hague Service Convention?

Decision

As the requested authority’s refusal was serious and final, no further transmission is required and the time limit of Art. 15(2)(b) of the Hague Convention does not apply. The request had been transmitted in the required form. The designation « Hong Kong » was the claimant’s choice, and censorship of content on grounds of political expediency has no place under the Convention, nor may the court itself redact the pleadings. As the other routes (representatives in the Munich proceedings, group companies, an email address) were bound to fail, Rule 275.2 RoP applies without a prior attempt under Rule 275.1 RoP. Notice of the order is given on the court’s website.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: faced with a definitive refusal by a foreign central authority, the claimant can obtain an order deeming service effected under Rule 275.2 RoP, without further futile attempts.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 41

Rules of Procedure

Rules 270 to 274, 275.1, 275.2 and 276.1

Other provisions

Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, Arts. 3, 5, 7 and 15, Administrative Committee decision of 8 July 2022

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.