Med-El v Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology (UPC_CFI_688/2025)
Decision date:
25 August 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- This decision related to service of an infringement claim by Med-El relating to cochlear implant systems on a Chinese-domiciled defendant.
- Article 48(1) UPCA and Rule 8.1 RoP require parties in the UPC to be represented. The first defendant had previously been subject to an ex parte preliminary injunction obtained by Med-El, and had authorised lawyers in the EU to accept service in relation to the provisional measures action. It had, however, expressly stated that its lawyers were not authorised to accept service of the main proceedings.
- Med-El sought permission to serve its statement of claim on the first defendant's lawyers. It noted that the Court of Appeal had previously acknowledged that the Chinese authorities had failed to serve court documents as required by the Hague Convention, and referred to a decision of the Mannheim LD that a representative's authority could not be limited to "specific actions arbitrarily chosen by the defendants" to exclude service of a matter that was "inextricably linked" to the proceedings, in that case an anti-anti-suit injunction.
- The Hamburg LD rejected Med-El's application. It held that parties do not need to be represented by the same lawyer in all proceedings before the UPC, nor is a lawyer authorised to act in provisional measures proceedings "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". The link was different from that in the Mannheim LD decision, where the representative in the main proceeding could be service an application that was "inextricably linked" to that main proceeding.
- As a result, service of the statement of claim on the first defendant would need to be carried out in accordance with the Hague Convention as required by Rule 274 RoP. The second defendant had already been served the statement of claim and this decision did not affect that.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.