Short Summary
This order concerns an application by the defendants (Advanced Bionics entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by MED-EL regarding European Patent EP4074373 ('MRI-safe disk magnet for implants'). The President of the Court of First Instance declared the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that the circumstances cited by the defendants resulted from their own strategic choices and did not demonstrate significant disadvantage justifying a change of language.
Detailed Summary
By Statement of Claim filed on 2 November 2023, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. brought an infringement action against Advanced Bionics AG (Switzerland), Advanced Bionics GmbH (Germany), and Advanced Bionics Sarl (France) before the Local Division Mannheim, based on European Patent EP4074373 entitled 'MRI-safe disk magnet for implants.' The patent was granted in English, while the default language of proceedings before the Mannheim Local Division was German.
On 5 March 2024, the defendants filed an application under R. 323 RoP and Article 49(5) UPCA requesting that the language of proceedings be changed to English. They argued that: (1) they had previously filed a revocation action against MED-EL before the Central Division Paris section, conducted in English; (2) they belong to the Sonova Group, which operates worldwide using English internally and with external partners; (3) their patent attorney is English and has worked on the patent family before the EPO and in the revocation action; (4) other legal disputes between the parties worldwide relating to the same patent family are coordinated centrally with English translations; and (5) adopting English would not disadvantage MED-EL, which also operates internationally. They further argued that since the Local Division refused to combine infringement and nullity proceedings (order of 22 February 2024), using English would avoid contradictions in understanding the patent.
MED-EL opposed the application, arguing it was inadmissible because R. 323 RoP requires such an application to be filed together with the Statement of Defence, and the defendants had not yet filed their defence. MED-EL further argued the application was unfounded, contending that the decision to change language is not at the court's discretion but subject to factual requirements including 'reasons of fairness,' which were not substantiated. MED-EL asserted that the circumstances cited were strategic choices by the defendants, that the defendants' position should not be given more weight, and that the claimant's interest should also be considered.
On admissibility, the President of the Court of First Instance (Florence Butin) rejected MED-EL's argument, holding that R. 323 RoP has not been interpreted as precluding an application filed before the Statement of Defence. The court noted that Article 49(5) UPCA does not specify a timeframe and that R. 321.1 RoP allows such requests 'at any time during the written procedure.' The court further relied on the Preamble of the RoP (Point 4) emphasizing flexibility, and on commentary indicating the purpose is to bring about a decision at the earliest possible stage. The application was therefore declared admissible.
On the merits, the court applied Article 49(5) UPCA, which permits the President, on grounds of fairness and taking into account all relevant circumstances including the position of the defendant, to order use of the language in which the patent was granted. The court held that the decision requires weighing the respective interests at stake, and that it may be sufficient if the language initially chosen is significantly detrimental to the applicant. However, the court found that the factors cited by Advanced Bionics—parallel proceedings, the revocation action in English, and the involvement of an English patent attorney—resulted from the defendants' own strategic choices and did not affect the conditions under which the defence was exercised in the present action. The court noted that two defendants are based in Germany and Switzerland (German-speaking jurisdictions), and that none of the applicants had invoked an imbalance of financial resources or any particular circumstance creating significant disadvantage. The inconvenience and costs of parallel proceedings in different languages were deemed insufficient to justify the change.
The court therefore rejected the application, declined to impose specific translation or interpretation arrangements, and ruled that costs would be dealt with in the main proceedings. The order was issued on 15 April 2024, with a 15-calendar-day appeal period under Article 73(2)(a) UPCA and R. 220(c) RoP.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics Sarl vs MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Establishment Labs S.A.vsGC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited & Others (UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026)
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
Volkswagen AGvsNetwork System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
KIPA ABvsEx Parte
This procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by KIPA AB (along with co-applicant SWAT Medical AB) for access to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (claimant) and Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited and others (defendants) concerning EP 2 628 464. The applicant sought access as a member of the public and competitor in the cardiac implant technology field. The Court rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in obtaining access at that stage, while granting leave to appeal.
Daedalus Prime LLCvsXiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, and MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This case concerns a confidentiality application (R. 262A RoP) filed by the Claimant Daedalus Prime LLC in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP2792100. The Claimant sought to restrict access to certain statements regarding the transfer of the patent suit and a partially redacted Patent Transfer Agreement to attorneys' eyes only. The Court balanced the parties' interests and granted access to two specific in-house legal counsels of the Xiaomi Defendants, while denying access to a third in-house counsel responsible for technical analysis.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsDexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently applied to withdraw their respective claims, with each consenting to the other's withdrawal. The Court of First Instance declared the proceedings closed without issuing a cost decision.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.