ARTICLE
16 May 2025

LD Munich, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_119/2025

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

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.
As per Rule 271.6.b RoP, service is deemed effective even if physical acceptance of a document is refused, as long as the addressee was properly notified and had a reasonable opportunity to collect it.
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Service of legal documents does not require actual physical receipt

As per Rule 271.6.b RoP, service is deemed effective even if physical acceptance of a document is refused, as long as the addressee was properly notified and had a reasonable opportunity to collect it.

In this case, the defendant's inaction in collecting the statement of claim was considered a refusal of acceptance, leading to deemed service.

The date of deemed service is crucial for determining deadlines, including the deadline for statement of defence (Rule 271.6.b RoP)

The court deemed the statement of claim served on the tenth day following its initial posting.

The defendants were then given a deadline to file their statement of defence.

The UPC prioritizeprocedural s efficiency in line with its service rules

The court's approach to deemed service aims to prevent intentional delays and ensure the efficient progression of cases.

By recognizing the defendant's awareness of the document and opportunity to collect it, the court emphasized the importance of timely engagement with legal proceedings.

The ruling provides clarity on the interpretation of "refusal of acceptance"

The decision clarifies that "refusal of acceptance" encompasses situations where a party is notified about a deliverable legal document but chooses not to collect it.

This interpretation provides a practical understanding of the provision and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar procedural issues.

2. Division

Local Division Munich

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_119/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement Action

5. Parties

Claimants:

Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd

Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.

Defendants:

LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH

LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.

LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL.

Soltech Energy GbR

Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V.

Energy3000 solar GmbH

1. Patent(s)

EP 4 372 829

2. Jurisdictions

UPC

3. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 271.6.b RoP, R. 271.8 RoP, R. 275 RoP

LD Munich UPC_CFI_119_2025

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More