Executive Summary
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement case concerning EP 2263098. The court ultimately dismissed this application, balancing the interests of both parties. While Apple argued that the technical nature and corporate language favored English, the court found that Ona Patents SL had sufficient reasons—including parallel national proceedings and local resources—to proceed in German.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court rejected the request to change the language of the proceedings, finding that the interests of the Claimant (Ona Patents SL) in maintaining the German language were greater than the slight advantage sought by the Defendants. The decision emphasized a case-by-case balancing act under Art. 49(5) UPCA.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ona Patents SL vs Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaAvsBrainPortfolio Inc.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA initiated proceedings against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. concerning the validity or infringement of EP 3 001 984 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order setting the date for oral hearings on April 22, 2026. This decision highlights the court's focus on ensuring technical expertise by requesting an additional qualified judge in the medical technology field (A61F/A61B).
10x Genomics, Inc.vsVizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 4108782, the Court of Appeal allowed 10x Genomics to withdraw all its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division in Hamburg. Vizgen agreed to this withdrawal. This decision highlights the flexibility within the UPC framework regarding appeal withdrawals, provided no final judgment has been rendered on the underlying infringement case.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SEvsIPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Chamber addressed disputes over the scope and timing of submissions in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 2 624 031 B1. The respondent sought to exclude large sections of the claimant's pleadings, arguing they were untimely or irrelevant to the patent validity challenge. Conversely, the claimant requested permission to introduce further arguments regarding claim waivers relevant to the infringement case. The court rejected all procedural motions, maintaining strict adherence to the UPC Rules of Procedure.
Nicoventures Trading LimitedvsJuul Labs International Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for access to written pleadings and evidence in parallel proceedings concerning patent validity. The court granted immediate access to specific documents requested by Nicoventures, recognizing its direct interest as an opponent in the EPO. However, this access was strictly conditioned: Nicoventures could not file or distribute these materials with other courts, like the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the UPC appeal concluded. This ruling highlights the Court's power to balance transparency with procedural integrity.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSONvsASUSTEK COMPUTER INC
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Ericsson and Asustek sets the stage for a complex patent dispute. The parties have agreed to proceed with both an infringement action by Ericsson and a counterclaim for revocation by Asustek. The Court has scheduled the interim conference and the main oral hearing, indicating that the case is moving forward toward substantive arguments.
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.