UPC Addresses Challenges Relating to Cross-Border Service of Legal Documents

In a recent decision issued by the The Hague Local Division of the Unified Patent Court involving Amycel LLC (Claimant) based in The Netherlands and Szymon Spyra (Defendant), based in Poland, the court addressed the procedural complexities surrounding the service of a Statement of Claim on the Defendant, who is based in a non-contracting member state. The Claimant’s application sought approval of various service methods after initial attempts to notify the Defendant were unsuccessful. The first two attempts, which involved sending registered letters with acknowledgment of receipt as prescribed under the UPC Rules of Procedure failed when the letters were returned unopened. The Claimant then pursued two alternative methods of service: 1) using a Dutch bailiff acting as a transmitting agency to engage an official receiving agency in Poland and 2) using a Dutch bailiff employing a private carrier to deliver the documents personally with acknowledgment of receipt. Both methods included translated copies of the Statement of Claim and other relevant procedural documents. However, the private carrier's delivery was refused and returned and the documents sent via the Polish agency were similarly returned unopened.

The court examined the Claimant’s efforts and determined that the Claimant had acted in accordance with the UPC’s principles of fairness and efficiency. It held that the steps taken by the Claimant met the criteria of "good service" under Rule 275.2 of the UPC Rules of Procedure, noting that the Defendant’s refusal to accept or open the documents did not negate the validity of the service. Accordingly, the court declared that the Statement of Claim was deemed served on November 25, 2024. The Defendant was granted a three-month period from this date to submit a Statement of Defence, with a clear warning that failure to do so would result in a default judgment in favour of the Claimant. The court further instructed the Claimant to send a copy of its order to the Defendant's former representative, emphasising the need to ensure that the Defendant is adequately informed of the proceedings.

This case underscores the procedural challenges inherent in cross-border patent litigation, particularly when a Defendant is located in a non-contracting member state and proves uncooperative. By validating the Claimant’s service attempts, the court demonstrated its commitment to balancing procedural rigor with principles of fairness.