Düsseldorf Local Division, July 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_209/2026

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.

Explore Firm Details

The Local Division Düsseldorf issued a procedural order addressing service of a statement of claim under The Hague Convention when Chinese authorities indicate a defendant refuses to accept documents. The order clarifies whether such refusal constitutes sufficient service and examines the application of Rule 275.2 RoP for immediate service without requiring alternative methods under Rule 275.1 RoP.

Germany Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Article Insights

Henri Kirner’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
in United States

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Technology topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

If a statement of claim is to be served under The Hague Convention and, according to the competent Chinese authority, the defendant “refuses to accept the documents,” the Court may deem the steps taken so far to be sufficient for good service.

The Court attempted to serve the SoC on Defendants domiciled in China pursuant to The Hague Convention and in accordance with R. 274.1 (a) (2) of the RoP. However, the competent Chinese authority stated in each case the “[t]he recipient refused to accept the documents.” The Court found that the refusal of service without giving any reason by a defendant strongly indicates that other alternative methods will also be rejected, making further service attempts prior to a R. 275.2 RoP order unnecessary.

R. 275.2 RoP permits immediate and adequate service, bypassing the need for service by an alternative method or at an alternative location under R. 275.1 RoP, provided no other alternative service options are available.

An order under R. 275.2 RoP is consistent with Civil Procedure Law of the People´s Republic of China

The Court found R. 275.4 RoP to be satisfied since Art. 95 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People´s Republic of China permits “public service” as an alternative method for service.

Although Claimant had requested service by public notice and the SoC to be deemed served 30 days after such notice, the Court directly ruled that the steps already taken to bring the SoC to Defendants’ attention constituted good service under R. 275.2 RoP. The Court thereby reaffirmed its prior case law, holding that where no viable alternative service options exist, an order under R. 275.1 RoP is not applicable.

Local Division Düsseldorf

2. UPC number

UPC_CFI_209/2026

3. Type of proceedings

Procedural order on service

4. Parties

Claimant:
LiNA Medical AG (represented by Carl-Alexander Dinges, Daniel Hoppe, Konstantin Schallmoser, and Dr. Alexander Harguth)

Defendants:
Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
Mr. Sam Lee
Eunitor GmbH

5. Patent(s)

EP 2 593 025 B1

UPC

6. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 274.1 RoP, Rule 275.1 RoP, Rule 275.2 RoP, Rule 275.4 RoP, Art. 95 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.

To view the full article please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]