LD Milan, July 10, 2026, Order – Alignment Of Defence Deadlines For Co-Defendants Where Service Abroad Is Pending, UPC CFI 1902/2025

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

A Chinese defendant successfully obtained conditional alignment of procedural deadlines in a patent infringement case before the Milan Local Division, despite the claimant's opposition based on the Hong Kong co-defendant's alleged refusal to accept voluntary service. The Court granted the alignment but required immediate acceptance of service by the unserved defendant as a precondition.

Italy Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Privacy topic(s)

The claimant filed an infringement action against two co-defendants before the Milan Local Division. One defendant (based in China) had already been served and was facing an imminent deadline to file its statement of defence. The other defendant (based in Hong Kong) had not yet been served – with no certainty as to when service would be completed. The Chinese defendant applied for a deadline alignment so both co-defendants would face the same deadline. The claimant opposed, arguing that the Hong Kong defendant’s representatives – already acting in parallel provisional measures proceedings before the same court – had refused to voluntarily accept service. Amicable resolution failed. The Court granted the alignment, but made it conditional on the Hong Kong defendant’s immediate acceptance of service.

1. Key takeaways

The Court cannot force a representative to accept service

Under R. 271.1 (c) RoP, service on a representative is only effective if that representative has actively notified the Registry or claimant to accept service. The fact that the same representatives were already acting for the same party in parallel UPC proceedings is irrelevant – this does not create an obligation to accept service.

Deadlines may be aligned subject to acceptance of service

The action was already duly effected on Defendant 1), while service on Defendant 2) had not yet been completed. In this situation, the Court aligned the deadlines for both defendants, extending Defendant 1)’s deadline for filing the statement of defence by approximately 50 days, while at the same time reducing Defendant 2)’s, provided that Defendant 2) immediately accepts service.

2. Division

Milan Local Division

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_1902/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement action – procedural order on alignment of deadlines (R. 9 RoP)

5. Parties

Claimant: Cardo Systems, Ltd. (Ra’anana, Israel)

Defendant 1: Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen, China)

Defendant 2: Resosport Limited (Hong Kong, China)

6. Patent(s)

Not specified in the order

7. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 9.3 RoP

R. 23 RoP

R. 271.1 (c) RoP

R. 334 (a) RoP

Art. 19 Regulation (EU) 2020/1784

UPC_CFI_1902-2025_LD Milan

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]