ARTICLE
31 July 2026

CD Milan, July 29, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1902/2025

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.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. has initiated infringement proceedings against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited at the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The case involves European Patent EP4240194 and follows specific procedural rules under the UPC framework.
Italy Intellectual Property
Kerstin Galler’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • with Senior Company Executives and HR
  • in European Union
  • in European Union
  • in European Union
  • in European Union
  • with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy industries

1. Key takeaways

Pragmatic solution for alignment of deadlines and service

The Claimant lodged an infringement action against two Defendants, Ziwu registered in China and Resosport registered in Hong Kong. Service was duly effected on Ziwu but not on Resosport. Ziwu thus requested an alignment of deadlines against acceptance of service by Resosport. Claimant opposed to the request. The judge rapporteur set a joint date from which the period for filing the statement of defense should run. Claimant appealed this decision emphasizing that the UPC-system was designed for fast patent dispute resolution and that both defendants had the same representative in parallel PI proceedings.

The Panel held that Resosport’s UPC representative could not be compelled to accept service in the main proceedings, even though they acted for Resosport in parallel PI proceedings. Since service on Resosport had to proceed through ordinary Hague Convention channels and remained uncertain at the time of the case management order of the Judge Rapporteur, the alignment of deadlines in exchange for immediate acceptance of service by Resosport served case-management efficiency. Thus, the Panel confirmed the initial order as a balanced solution: it extended Ziwu’s deadline of around 50 days but significantly shortened Resosport’s potential deadline also of approximately 50 days, ensuring orderly and efficient proceedings. Claimant’s request for review and shortening of the deadlines was therefore dismissed.

2. Division

Milan Local Division

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_1902/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement proceedings

5. Parties

Cardo Systems, Ltd. (Claimant);

Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd., Resosport Limited (both Defendants)

6. Patent(s)

EP4240194

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 9.3, 23, 333, 334(a) RoP

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]

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