Nokia Technologies OY v OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co & Ors [2022] EWHC 293 (Pat) (09 February 2022)

Nokia Technologies OY v OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co & Ors [2022] EWHC 293 (Pat) (09 February 2022)

Permission for alternative service was granted because service under the Hague Convention had failed through no fault of the applicant, resulting in exceptional delay and uncertainty. D1 and D3 were already aware of the proceedings and actively involved, so alternative service by email would ensure timely notice and prevent prejudice to the due administration of justice, outweighing any minimal impact on comity.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 293 (Pat)
Parties
Applicant: Nokia Technologies Oy; Respondent: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd; Respondent: Unumplus Limited (t/a OnePlus); Respondent: Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp, Ltd; Respondent: Oppo Mobile UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Claim / Application for Permission for Alternative Service (ex Parte, on Notice)
Outcome
Permission for alternative service granted
Legal Topics
Alternative Service of Process, Patent Infringement, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Hague Convention, Case Management
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Alternative Service of Process Patent Infringement Service Out of Jurisdiction Hague Convention Case Management

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nokia Technologies Oy

Applicant

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd

Respondent

Unumplus Limited (t/a OnePlus)

Respondent

Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp, Ltd

Respondent

Oppo Mobile UK Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Claim / Application for Permission for Alternative Service (ex Parte, on Notice)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted for alternative service on foreign defendants under CPR 6.37(5) in light of failed Hague Convention service
  2. 2 Whether special or exceptional circumstances exist to justify alternative service circumventing the Hague Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for alternative service was granted because service under the Hague Convention had failed through no fault of the applicant, resulting in exceptional delay and uncertainty. D1 and D3 were already aware of the proceedings and actively involved, so alternative service by email would ensure timely notice and prevent prejudice to the due administration of justice, outweighing any minimal impact on comity.

Court Disposition

Permission for alternative service granted

Orders

  • Alternative service on D1 and D3 permitted by email to Ms. Zhu at zhujuan@oppo.com and to Hogan Lovells LLP at Oppo-Nokia@hoganlovells.com
  • Nokia may continue efforts to serve under the Hague Convention as a fallback