(i) has not been served on the defendant in a timely manner and in a manner that allows him to organize his defence, unless the defendant appears and presents his case without contesting the service before the court of origin, provided that the law of the State of origin permits the contestation of service; or (ii) has been served on the defendant in the requested State in a manner inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the requested State with respect to the service of documents; (a) the court of origin has been designated in a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement; (b) there is no judgment of another court which may be appealed pending under the non-exclusive trial agreement, nor is there any proceedings between the same parties before another court of that kind in respect of the same plea; and (c) the court of origin was the court that was first seized. 1. The contractual liability of the Court of Justice shall be governed by the law applicable to the contract in question, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (5) (Rome I), where applicable, or, failing that, the law of the Member State of the court seised. 3. The holder of a non-exclusive licence shall not have the right to bring an action before the Court unless the proprietor of the patent is informed in advance and in so far as the licence agreement expressly so permits. The Unified Patent Court is a common court of the Contracting Member States and is therefore subject to the same obligations under Union law as any national court of the Contracting Member States. 1. Recognition or enforcement of a judgment may be refused if and to the extent that the judgment is intended to compensate damages, including exemplary or punitive damages or reparations, which are not compensated by a party for the damage actually suffered. (2) The court must take into consideration whether and to what extent the damages awarded by the court of origin are used to cover the costs and expenses of the proceedings. 1. This Convention shall not apply to exclusive choice of jurisdiction agreements – 2. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Contracting State with two or more territorial entities in which different legal applications are applied shall not be bound to apply this Convention to situations which concern only those different territorial units.

3. A court of a territorial unit of a Contracting State with two or more territorial entities in which different legal systems apply shall not be required to recognize or enforce a judgment of another State Party, merely because the judgment has been recognized or enforced in another territorial unit of the same State Party under this Convention. 4. This Article shall not apply to a regional economic integration organisation. (a) the agreement is void under the law of the State of the chosen jurisdiction; (b) a party has not been able to conclude the agreement under the law of the State of the court seised; (c) the implementation of the agreement would result in a manifest injustice or would be manifestly contrary to public policy in the State of the court seised; (d) for exceptional reasons which are not controlled by the parties, the contract cannot be reasonably performed; or (e) the chosen court has decided not to hear the case. 1. This Convention shall be interpreted in such a way that it is as compatible as possible with other treaties applicable to the Contracting States, whether concluded before or after this Convention. .