Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v. Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd., Order UPC CFI Düsseldorf Local Division, 11 November 2025, Case no. UPC_CFI_515/2025
Headnote:
If an application for provisional measures is to be served under the Hague Convention, and the authority responsible for the service does not effect service for several months, the Court may deem the steps taken so far sufficient for proper service. This applies in any case where the applicant has credibly demonstrated that the address at which service was attempted is correct, and that attempts to contact the responsible service authority as well as attempts to inform the Defendant of the application for provisional measures outside of the Court, have failed.
==
“Taking into account the time that has elapsed since the request for service was sent to the Chinese authorities and the unsuccessful attempts to contact the Chinese authorities and Defendant 2., it is justified to consider the steps taken so far as proper service in accordance with R. 275.2 RoP […]
“Art. 15(2) of the Hague Convention does not preclude this. Insofar as this provision stipulates as one condition to be fulfilled that a period of time of not less than six months has elapsed since the date of the transmission of the document, this time limit cannot apply without restriction in PI proceedings. Applying this time limit formally puts the Applicant at risk of its legal protection potentially becoming ineffective. Art. 15(3) of the Hague Convention shows that the Convention also recognises this issue by allowing the order of provisional measures in urgent cases, despite the formal service requirements. […]
“Although the Düsseldorf Local Division has complied with all the formal requirements set out in the Hague Convention, the status of the request for service has remained unchanged on the official portal of the Chinese authorities since 19 June 2025. […]
“To ensure effective legal protection for the Applicant, it is therefore necessary to order that the steps already taken to bring the application for provisional measures to the attention of Defendant 2. is good service.
“In order to enable Defendant 2. to take note of the present order without service, it was necessary to order that a separate reference to the present order be made on the Court’s publicly available website.”
A copy of the jugment can be read here.
