UPC Litigation Risks for Chinese Firms: Service Delays Could Mean Surprise Judgments

Since the establishment of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) just over two years ago, cross-border service of statements of claim - especially to Chinese defendants - has proven problematic.  

Understanding the new procedural regulatory landscape is key for businesses wishing to issue legal proceedings as well as those potentially on the receiving end.

What is the process? 

• Service of the statement of claim is possible either via e-mail to an authorised recipient with their consent or via the Chinese Central Authority (CCA) as provided for in the Hague Convention.
• Often, no such recipient is known and the CCA often either objects to the service or remains inactive for several months.
• This is to the detriment of many Chinese defendants, who are interested in being notified in a timely manner so that their legal interests can be represented in the UPC litigation.

How has the UPC handled these situations? 

• Local Divisions of the UPC have shown different approaches to how to deal with denied or significantly delayed service in China: 
  • Regarding service of the statement of claim, the Local Division Munich requires an alternative method of service to be attempted if both of the above mentioned “normal routes” fail. It has previously considered service by public notice to be the “last resort” (UPC_CoA_69/2024, 29 July 2024) and has not regarded it as a suitable alternative method (UPC_CFI_508/2023, 09 December 2024). Having said that, regarding service of a judgment, the Division recently considered service by public notice to be good service (UPC_CFI_508/2023, 21 January 2025).
  • The Local Division Mannheim on the other hand, instead of requiring an attempt by an alternative method, directly proceeded to hand down a judgment which is then emailed to the defendant and served by public notice in the News section of the UPC’s website (UPC_CFI_330/2024, 31 July 2024).
• The divisions – from a practical point of view – arrive at the same result, albeit by a different route, leaving some room for discussion as to whether service by public notice is acceptable (service by public notice is provided for by German national law but – at least not explicitly – by the UPC Rules of Procedure).

Note: Even if service has been accepted by an authorised person in previous proceedings, this does not substantiate the authorisation of the same person to accept service in related proceedings. The Local Division Hamburg decided that a lawyer authorised to represent a party in a proceeding on provisional measures is not automatically authorised to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action concerning the same patent, even if there is a link between the two proceedings. Accordingly, service in the subsequent proceedings had to be effected according to the recognised methods (UPC_CFI_688/2025, 25 August 2025).

What should Chinese businesses do?

There is a significant risk of a Chinese business only becoming aware of UPC proceedings once a judgment is being enforced, in particular if there is no co-defendant which is domiciled in a UPCA member state or in an EU member state which is not a UPCA member yet. 

To mitigate this risk, companies may appoint authorised recipients who can accept service via email — ensuring timely awareness and legal preparedness.

Please get in touch with us via your usual Bird & Bird contact or via [email protected] if you would like any advice on this issue. 

To visit our UPC homepage for all resources click here.