2025-08-25 - LD Hamburg - MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft v. Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology et al.

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 (cf. e.g. Article 32.2 UPCA and Rule 213 RoP). Hence, the defendant’s representative in the proceedings on provisional measures is not automatically authorised to accept service of a statement of claim in a subsequent infringement action. When the defendant has its statutory seat, central administration and principal place of business outside the territory of the contracting member states of the UPCA, service shall normally be done in accordance with Rule 274 RoP.

The Hamburg LD held that a lawyer authorised to represent a party in PI proceedings is not automatically authorised to accept service in a subsequent main action, even where the proceedings are linked under Rule 213.1 RoP. The court distinguished the Mannheim LD approach (UPC_CFI_445/2025), where a representative in the main proceedings was forced to accept service of a linked PI application, noting the directional difference: PI representative mandates do not extend to the main action. For a Chinese defendant with no presence in UPCA contracting member states, service must follow Rule 274 RoP via the Hague Service Convention.