Extractor: pypdf | Pages: 25
DECISION of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 November 2026 HEADNOTES: 1. An alternative method authorised under R. 275 RoP need not be a method prescribed by the internal law of the State of destination for the service of documents in domestic proceedings. Otherwise, the reference in R. 274.1(b) RoP to an alternative method aut horised under R. 275 RoP would have no autonomous meaning. 2. Deemed service and actual service are distinct concepts. A determination under R. 275.3(b) RoP that the Statement of claim is deemed served on a particular date does not, by itself, establish actual service within the meaning of R. 277(b) RoP. Actual service may nevertheless be established independently on the basis of the factual circumstances underlying that determination. 3. ...