{"id":44011,"date":"2026-01-21T14:25:51","date_gmt":"2026-01-21T13:25:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/?p=44011"},"modified":"2026-08-11T11:46:26","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T09:46:26","slug":"hague-service-convention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/","title":{"rendered":"Serving Court Documents in China: Lessons from a UPC Case in Milan"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 style=\"font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.3em;\">Serving court documents on Chinese defendants remains a challenge in UPC litigation. A recent decision by the Milan Local Division of the EPO points to possible solutions.<\/h2>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-r0xdl7-19418beffbe0fe19aaa6c6f7c2ae51b5\">\n#top .hr.hr-invisible.av-r0xdl7-19418beffbe0fe19aaa6c6f7c2ae51b5{\nheight:25px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='hr av-r0xdl7-19418beffbe0fe19aaa6c6f7c2ae51b5 hr-invisible  avia-builder-el-0  avia-builder-el-no-sibling'><span class='hr-inner'><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<h3>Background: A Cross-Border Service Challenge<\/h3>\n<p>In December 2025, the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a notable decision (Case <strong>UPC_CFI_766\/2024<\/strong>) addressing the difficulties of serving court documents on companies based in China. The case involved a patent infringement claim by Cardo Systems against two defendants, one in Hong Kong and one in mainland China. While the Hong Kong-based defendant was ultimately served on a second attempt, service on the Shenzhen (PR China)-based company failed twice due to objections raised by Chinese authorities. This situation highlighted the procedural hurdles and international complexities when delivering UPC legal documents abroad under the Hague Service Convention.<\/p>\n<h3>The Hague Service Convention and UPC Rules of Procedure<\/h3>\n<p>When serving defendants outside the EU (and outside the UPC\u2019s member states), the UPC relies on the Hague Service Convention as the primary mechanism for cross-border notification. The UPC\u2019s Rules of Procedure explicitly integrate the Hague Convention\u2019s framework, ensuring a uniform approach to service across all participating states. In fact, the Milan court emphasized that <strong>Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention applies fully in the UPC system<\/strong>, regardless of any additional national requirements, because the UPC has a uniform service regime and all member states have effectively adopted the Convention\u2019s rules by agreeing to the UPC Rules. In practice, this means that if a document needs to be served in a non-UPC country like China, the serving party must follow Hague Convention procedures (e.g. through the designated Central Authority) before resorting to any alternative methods.<\/p>\n<h3>Political and Formalistic Obstacles: The China Dilemma<\/h3>\n<p>In the Milan case, the Chinese Central Authority twice refused to execute service on the Shenzhen defendant for an unusual reason: the court papers referred to the first defendant\u2019s address as \u201cHong Kong\u201d instead of \u201cHong Kong, China\u201d. This demand \u2013 essentially a political\/semantic issue \u2013 created a serious obstacle to serving the lawsuit. The UPC court noted that such a refusal was based on a purely formalistic ground, since the first defendant in Hong Kong had already been successfully served (making the address wording issue moot). More importantly, the court held that foreign authorities have no right to demand changes to the content of judicial documents. Quoting a prior UPC decision, the Milan judge stressed that <strong>\u201ccensorship of content based on political expediency has no place in the Hague Service Convention\u201d<\/strong>, and it is not the role of a receiving state\u2019s agency to \u201ccensor or edit the content of the document to be served\u201d. How a claimant describes a defendant\u2019s address is up to the claimant; a Central Authority cannot block service over terminology or political nuances. The Chinese authority\u2019s insistence on the phrase \u201cHong Kong, China\u201d was therefore deemed an improper basis to refuse service.<\/p>\n<h3>The Milan Court\u2019s Solution: Valid Service Despite Refusal<\/h3>\n<p>Facing a \u201cserious and final\u201d refusal by China\u2019s authorities to effect service, the Milan Local Division took a pragmatic approach. The court declared that the steps already undertaken by the claimant to serve the Chinese defendant \u2013 transmitting the documents via the Hague Convention process \u2013 were sufficient to <strong>constitute legally valid service<\/strong>, even though the defendant had not physically received the papers. Under the Hague Convention (Article 15) and UPC rules, once all reasonable formal attempts have been made and a foreign authority definitively rejects or fails to complete service, the court may proceed without further delay. The Milan decision confirmed that no additional attempts were necessary in this case, as requiring more tries or waiting longer would be futile.<\/p>\n<p>Crucially, the court refused to alter or \u201cwater down\u201d the content of the documents to satisfy the foreign authority, citing the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Instead, the judge treated the Chinese authority\u2019s non-cooperation as a breach of the Hague Convention obligations and moved forward by issuing an order to validate service. In the court\u2019s words, \u201cthe steps already taken\u2026constitute legally valid service. Otherwise, service would be impossible.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3>Alternative Means: Notice by Publication on the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.unifiedpatentcourt.org\/en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">UPC Website<\/a><\/h3>\n<p>To further safeguard the defendant\u2019s due process rights despite the lack of formal service, the Milan Local Division employed an unconventional backup method: publication of a notice on the UPC\u2019s website. The court ordered that a reference to its decision (including the party names and case number) be posted on the publicly accessible UPC website, effectively as a form of public notice. This way, even though official service through Chinese channels failed, the defendant could still become aware of the ongoing proceedings by seeing the announcement online. The court explicitly stated that formal service of the decision itself was unnecessary (and would have been doomed to fail for the same reasons) once this online publication was made. This approach \u2014 essentially service by public notification \u2014 is provided for in the UPC framework as a last resort when all formal avenues are blocked.<\/p>\n<h3>Practical Takeaways for UPC Litigation<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Plan for Delays and Obstacles:<\/strong> Serving defendants in non-EU countries like China can be fraught with unexpected hurdles. Be prepared for potential delays and formal objections (in this case, it took nearly a year of efforts and a court order to resolve service).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Adhere to Hague Convention Formalities:<\/strong> Ensure full compliance with Hague Service Convention requirements (proper translations, forms, addresses, etc.) when serving abroad. Minor errors or deviations can prompt refusals, as seen with the \u201cHong Kong\u201d nomenclature issue. While the UPC won\u2019t require altering your documents to appease foreign authorities, anticipating local sensitivities (e.g. naming conventions) might save time.<\/li>\n<li><strong>UPC Rules Require Exhaustion of Official Channels:<\/strong> The UPC will generally insist that you exhaust formal service methods under Hague (or applicable international channels) before seeking alternative means. Attempts to bypass official procedures (like direct email or local publication at the court) will not be approved \u201cat this stage\u201d unless convention routes truly fail.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Courts Won\u2019t Tolerate Unreasonable Refusal:<\/strong> If a foreign state\u2019s authorities refuse service for improper reasons, the UPC is prepared to declare service effected regardless. In Milan, the judge treated the Chinese authority\u2019s stance as contrary to the Convention and moved on. Practitioners can take comfort that good-faith attempts to serve won\u2019t be in vain due to politics or formalism.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Alternative Service by Court Order:<\/strong> The Milan case demonstrates that the UPC can resort to alternative measures like publicizing the case on the court\u2019s website when standard service is impossible. Lawyers should be aware that a defendant who evades service (or whose country obstructs it) may still be bound by proceedings that continue in their absence. For defendants outside Europe, it\u2019s wise to monitor UPC publications and not rely on local authorities to forward documents.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Looking Ahead:<\/strong> This decision fits neatly with the principles already developed by the Court of Appeal in CoA_69\/2024, order of 9 July 2024. It signals that the UPC will strike a balance between respecting international service treaties and ensuring that litigation isn\u2019t derailed by external roadblocks. In future cases involving non-EU parties, we can expect the UPC to take a similar pragmatic approach, upholding the integrity of its process while using creative solutions (like website notices) to give defendants a fair chance to respond.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Serving court documents on Chinese defendants remains a challenge in UPC litigation. A recent decision by the Milan Local Division of the EPO points to possible solutions. Background: A Cross-Border Service Challenge In December 2025, the Milan Local Division of&#8230;<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":42393,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[64],"tags":[],"legal_areas":[218,224],"class_list":["post-44011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-upc-update-en","legal_areas-patent-litigation","legal_areas-patents-and-utility-models"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.2 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>UPC litigation: Serving court documents on defendants in China<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A recent UPC decision from Milan highlights practical solutions for serving court documents on defendants based in China.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"UPC litigation: Serving court documents on defendants in China\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A recent UPC decision from Milan highlights practical solutions for serving court documents on defendants based in China.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BOEHMERT &amp; BOEHMERT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-01-21T13:25:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-11T09:46:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"650\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"598\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Petra Hettenkofer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Petra Hettenkofer\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/hague-service-convention\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/hague-service-convention\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Petra Hettenkofer\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e46018db6ce9c808bc0f35de4a8cec19\"},\"headline\":\"Serving Court Documents in China: Lessons from a UPC Case in Milan\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-21T13:25:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-11T09:46:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/hague-service-convention\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1295,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/hague-service-convention\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"UPC-Update\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/hague-service-convention\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/hague-service-convention\\\/\",\"name\":\"UPC litigation: Serving court documents on defendants in China\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/hague-service-convention\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/hague-service-convention\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-21T13:25:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-11T09:46:26+00:00\",\"description\":\"A recent UPC decision from Milan highlights practical solutions for serving court documents on defendants based in China.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/hague-service-convention\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/hague-service-convention\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/hague-service-convention\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg\",\"width\":650,\"height\":598,\"caption\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT UPC Update\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/hague-service-convention\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Serving Court Documents in China: Lessons from a UPC Case in Milan\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT\",\"description\":\"Intellectual property law firm\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB\",\"alternateName\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Logo-boehmert.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Logo-boehmert.webp\",\"width\":696,\"height\":172,\"caption\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/de.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/boehmert-&-boehmert\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.xing.com\\\/pages\\\/boehmert-boehmertanwaltssozietat\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e46018db6ce9c808bc0f35de4a8cec19\",\"name\":\"Petra Hettenkofer\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"UPC litigation: Serving court documents on defendants in China","description":"A recent UPC decision from Milan highlights practical solutions for serving court documents on defendants based in China.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"UPC litigation: Serving court documents on defendants in China","og_description":"A recent UPC decision from Milan highlights practical solutions for serving court documents on defendants based in China.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/","og_site_name":"BOEHMERT &amp; BOEHMERT","article_published_time":"2026-01-21T13:25:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-11T09:46:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":650,"height":598,"url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Petra Hettenkofer","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Petra Hettenkofer","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/"},"author":{"name":"Petra Hettenkofer","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/e46018db6ce9c808bc0f35de4a8cec19"},"headline":"Serving Court Documents in China: Lessons from a UPC Case in Milan","datePublished":"2026-01-21T13:25:51+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-11T09:46:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/"},"wordCount":1295,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg","articleSection":["UPC-Update"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/","name":"UPC litigation: Serving court documents on defendants in China","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg","datePublished":"2026-01-21T13:25:51+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-11T09:46:26+00:00","description":"A recent UPC decision from Milan highlights practical solutions for serving court documents on defendants based in China.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg","width":650,"height":598,"caption":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT UPC Update"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/hague-service-convention\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Serving Court Documents in China: Lessons from a UPC Case in Milan"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/","name":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT","description":"Intellectual property law firm","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#organization","name":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB","alternateName":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Logo-boehmert.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Logo-boehmert.webp","width":696,"height":172,"caption":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/de.linkedin.com\/company\/boehmert-&-boehmert","https:\/\/www.xing.com\/pages\/boehmert-boehmertanwaltssozietat"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/e46018db6ce9c808bc0f35de4a8cec19","name":"Petra Hettenkofer"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44011","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44011\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/42393"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44011"},{"taxonomy":"legal_areas","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_areas?post=44011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}