Panasonic Holdings v Xiaomi Technology Germany (CFI, 8 December 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 8 December 2023 (UPC_CFI_219/2023, App_589186/2023), the Mannheim Local Division rejected Panasonic Holdings Corporation’s application for a ruling that delivery of the statements of claim to the German address of Xiaomi Technology Germany amounted to service on four other group defendants established in China and Hong Kong, in the infringement action on EP 2 568 724. The claimant was ordered to provide the documents needed for service under the Hague Service Convention, in particular Chinese translations. The order shuts the door on group-wide service based on related companies’ knowledge of the proceedings.

Question

Does Rule 275.2 RoP allow service on defendants established outside the EPC contracting states to be treated as effected by delivery to the group’s German company, without any prior attempt at service abroad?

Decision

No. Rule 275 RoP permits service by alternative means only after service under Rules 270 to 274 RoP has failed, Rules 273 and 274 RoP make no provision for service on a branch, and Rule 271.5 RoP applies only within the member states. Nor had the claimant shown that the German company was a branch of all four defendants. China and Hong Kong being parties to the Hague Service Convention, service must follow that Convention, and no attempt had been made. Rule 275.2 RoP is an exceptional provision of last resort, which cannot override treaty obligations through knowledge imputed to the group. Formal service is also required by the right to a fair trial.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: against defendants in China or Hong Kong, a claimant should prepare Hague Convention service from the outset, translations included, before considering Rule 275.2 RoP.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 1(2) and 24(1)(d)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 270 to 275, in particular 271.5, 273, 274(a)(ii), 275.1 and 275.2

Other provisions

Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, Arts 1(1) and 22, Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, Arts 1 and 15, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 6(1), TRIPS Agreement, Art. 42

Case law cited

Philips IP Ventures v Edrich, Munich Local Division, ORD_576855/2023 (relied on by the claimant and not followed), CJEU, 19 December 2012, Alder, C-325/11, decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court and Federal Court of Justice

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.