Rule 275 – Service of the Statement of claim by an alternative method or at an alternative place

1. Where service in accordance with Section 1 or 2 could not be effected the Court on an application by the claimant that there is a good reason to authorise service by a method or at a place not otherwise permitted by this Chapter, the Court may by way of order permit service by an alternative method or at an alternative place.

2. On a reasoned request by the claimant, the Court may order that steps already taken to bring the Statement of claim to the attention of the defendant by an alternative method or at an alternative place is good service.

3. An order under this rule shall specify:

(a) the method or place of service;

(b) the date on which the Statement of claim is deemed served; and

(c) the period for filing the Statement of defence.

4. No order for alternative service under this Rule shall be made permitting service in a manner that is contrary to the law of the state where service is to be effected.

Case law

IPPT20240411, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Daedalus v Xiaomi
Service by an alternative method (Rule 275 RoP) requires at least a first attempt of service in accordance with Rules 273 and 274 RoP. Since Defendants 1) and 2) as well as Defendant 5) are domiciled outside the territory of the contracting member states of the UPCA, service must be effected in accordance with Rules 273 and 274 RoP. These provisions demand at least a first attempt of service in accordance with Rule 274.1 (a) (ii) and (iii) RoP. 

IPPT20240228, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ICPillar v ARM
Court orders that steps already taken to bring the Statement of claim to the attention of the defendants by an alternative method or at an alternative place is good service (Rule 275(2) RoP). The Statement of Claim to Arm Limited, Apical Limited, Simulity Labs Limited and SVF Holdco, is deemed to be served on 7 February 2024.

IPPT20240212, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ICPillar v ARM
Alternative method of service of Statement of Claim (Rule 275(1) RoP). As regards Poland service under section 1 or 2 could not be effected. Court authorizes three alternative methods, which appear to be good service and comply with the law of the country where service is to be effected (Rule 275(4) RoP), as they comply with the EU Service Regulation (EU 2020/1784). The date on which the Statement of Claim is deemed to have been served is the date of effective delivery of the letter to this defendant at his legal address.  As regards service in the United Kingdom the criteria under Rule 275(1) RoP […] are not met at this stage of the procedure. Service under Rule 274(1)(ii) ROP (Hague Service Convention) is still in progress and the delay of 10 days from the date of sending the registered letter is still reasonable. Therefore, the request under Rule 275(1) regarding service on the UK entities will be dismissed. 

IPPT20240205, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC V TCI
Alternative method of service of Statement of claim requires an unsuccessful attempt (Rule 275 RoP). Court cannot designate someone as a person authorised to accept service for a defendant. Alternative method of service of a statement of claim always requires an actual (“real”) but unsuccessful attempt of service, not sufficient that service is presumptively not possible or cannot be effected because of known deficiencies of service according to the Hage Convention in certain countries. The claimant's auxiliary request refers to RoP 275.1. According to RoP 275.1, the court may permit service by an alternative method or at an alternative place if service in accordance with Section 1 or 2 could not be effected. (see: Local Division Mannheim, 8 Becember 2023, CFI_219/2023, IPPT20231208)  Potential breach of FRAND obligation irrelevant in the context of Rule 275 RoP. 

IPPT20231208, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Alternative method of service of Statement of claim (Rule 275 RoP). Contrary to the opinion of the Munich Local Court, Rule 275.2 RoP cannot be interpreted in principle as permitting service without first having attempted service in accordance with the provisions applicable to service abroad.

IPPT20231204, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Panasonic v Xiaomi

Final order based on agreement by the parties regarding Service of Statement of claim by alternative method deemed accepted (Rule 275 RoP); Extension of time to file Statement of defence granted (Rule 9 RoP). The agreement between the parties on the […] procedural issues is procedurally efficient and reasonable and should therefore be implemented.

IPPT20231127, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Panasonic v Xiaomi

Preliminary order : Service of Statement of claim by alternative method (Rule 275 RoP); Extension of time to file Statement of defence (Rule 9 RoP). The Court is of the opinion that the most efficient and economically sensible course of action in the present case would be for the present counsel for Defendants 3,4,5,6,9,10 to accept service for Defendants 1, 2, 7, 8 on Defendant 3 in the context of the motion under (Rule 275.2 RoP). As a concession, the time limit for responding to the action could - subject to a statement by the plaintiff - be set uniformly until 31 January 2024. The application for an extension of time for defendants 3,4,5,6,9,10 would then be interpreted as also including an application for an extension of time for defendants 1, 2, 7,8.

IPPT20230927, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Philips v Edrich

Valid service Statement of claim on 4th defendant via 1st defendant, who is one of its directors. In the opinion of the Local Division, knowledge may be presumed pursuant to Rule 275(2) RoP if either a legal relationship exists after which knowledge may be imputed or concrete circumstances exist which establish knowledge.