2026-10-12 - LD Munich - Huawei v. Sercomm Italia et al. - UPC-CFI-0001271/2026

Aktenzeichen:
UPC-CFI-0001271/2026
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
Art:
Order
Parteien:
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Sercomm Corporation, SerComm Deutschland GmbH, Sercomm France SARL, Sercomm Italia SRL

Kernaussage: The order issues in UPC_CFI_3452/2026, the proceedings against Sercomm Italia SRL severed from the infringement action UPC_CFI_1271/2026; the corpus files it under the original case number.

2026-10-12 - LD Munich - Huawei v. Sercomm Italia et al. - UPC-CFI-0001271/2026
🏛️Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division• Order
📅2026-10-12
🔢UPC-CFI-0001271/2026
Parteien & Vertreter
UPC-CFI-0001271/2026
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
Tobias J. HESSEL
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Sercomm Corporation
SerComm Deutschland GmbH
Sercomm France SARL
Sercomm Italia SRL
Steffen Elmar STEININGER
UPC-CFI-0003452/2026
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
Tobias J. HESSEL
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Sercomm Italia SRL
Steffen Elmar STEININGER
⚖️Infringement Action
🌐German
🤖🇬🇧

notable
The order issues in UPC_CFI_3452/2026, the proceedings against Sercomm Italia SRL severed from the infringement action UPC_CFI_1271/2026; the corpus files it under the original case number. By an earlier order of 7 October 2026, recited at [14]-[16], the judge-rapporteur had held under R. 275.2 RoP that the steps already taken constituted valid service, because the defendant had actual knowledge of the statement of claim through service on its sister company Sercomm Deutschland GmbH, whose managing directors are the same persons; he deemed service effected on 12 June 2026 and set a three-week time period for the defence under R. 275.3 RoP. Because notification of that order by e-mail and Tresorit link to the defendant and to the sister company's representative failed, the present order directs that both orders be uploaded in the parallel proceedings, where that representative is registered, and served on him on paper. The Court relies on the representative's duty under the mandate to forward all court communications to the client, whose managing directors are identical with the defendant's.

Inoffiziell

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren