1. Key takeaways
Alternative service may be authorized under Rule 275.1 RoP upon establishing good reason when standard service under Rules 270 to 274 RoP proves impossible.
Where regular postal delivery under Rule 271.4(a) RoP fails at the registered seat, documents remain uncollected at a postal depot, and the defendant’s known representative declines consensual service, standard service is considered impossible, establishing good reason under Rule 275.1 RoP.
Direct service via a national judicial officer under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 constitutes an authorized alternative service method under Rule 275 RoP.
Dutch judicial officers (gerechtsdeurwaarders) are designated by statute to effect service nationwide under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784. The Court assumed that personal delivery and contemporaneous written recording by the bailiff ensure proper service on the defendant.
The party applying for alternative service under Rule 275 RoP must cover the costs incurred in executing such service.
The Court ordered that the claimant must bear the costs of executing the alternative service through the bailiff, without providing any qualification or interlocutory determination regarding potential cost reimbursement upon conclusion of the main proceedings.
2. Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_2660/2026
4. Type of proceedings
Application for alternative service (Rule 275 RoP)
5. Parties
Claimant: Micron Technology, Inc.
Defendants:
Ultron AG
Lexar Europe B.V.
Apacer Technology B.V.
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 574 526
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 275 RoP, Rule 275.1 RoP, Rules 270–274 RoP, Rule 271.4(a) RoP, Art. 18 Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 (recast), Art. 20 Regulation (EU) 2020/1784
LD Düsseldorf, October 2, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2660/2026 » UPC Law Click here to view the full report.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
