By Order dated 30 April 2026, published only recently (UPC CFI No. 840/2026), the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) clarified how a statement of claim may be served on a company based in China, in order to ensure compliance with the UPC system’s requirement for expeditious proceedings (see the Preamble to the UPC Rules of Procedure, para. 7).

As a general rule, service on companies based in China is effected through the mechanisms provided for by the 1965 Hague Service Convention[1]. This route, however, is often lengthy and not always successful: it is not uncommon for service to fail, including before the UPC, with inevitable consequences on the overall duration of the proceedings.

The case arises from an infringement action brought by Guala Pack S.p.A. before the UPC Milan Local Division against the Chinese company LD Packaging (Foshan) Co., Ltd. While the attempt to serve the Defendant at its registered office in China under the Hague Service Convention was still pending, Guala Pack learned that LD Packaging would be exhibiting at the Interpack Trade Fair in Dusseldorf, a major international event for the packaging industry, with its own stand. The exhibitor’s page further indicated that the Defendant’s European Sales Manager would be present at the fair. Guala Pack therefore applied to the Court for authorisation to serve the Statement of Claim directly at the Defendant’s trade fair stand.

Referring to Rule 271.5(a) of the UPC Rules of Procedure, the Court recalled that service may be effected at any place within the Contracting Member States where a company has a “permanent or temporary place of business”. In the Court’s view, this concept may also encompass a trade fair stand, provided that the exhibitor carries out genuine commercial activities there.

In the case at hand, the announced presence of the European Sales Manager was considered sufficient evidence that the stand was intended for actual business activities, such as promotion, lead generation and, potentially, securing orders. The Court therefore recognised the principle that a trade fair may constitute a place where a company effectively conducts its business, even if only on a temporary basis.

Having established the existence of a temporary place of business in Germany and the applicability of the UPC Rules on service, the Milan Local Division identified the most appropriate method of service under German procedural law: delivery by a German bailiff (Gerichtsvollzieher), possibly assisted by a representative of the Claimant, to the company’s European Sales Manager or, alternatively, to the most senior member of the Defendant’s staff present at the stand.

The order confirms the UPC’s pragmatic approach: the difficulties associated with serving documents in non-European countries should not paralyse proceedings where effective alternative solutions are available. Service at a trade fair does not necessarily replace the ordinary Hague Service Convention route – which had already been initiated in this case – but may complement it by providing a faster way to ensure that the defendant is actually informed of the pending proceedings.

_{[1] Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters}