Executive Summary
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by multiple XPENG-related entities and others to change the language of an infringement case from French (or German) to English. The court granted this application, citing fairness and convenience, noting that English was the patent's granting language and widely used among the parties. Crucially, the Claimant, ArcelorMittal, was ordered to provide translations of its Statement of Claim at its own expense. This decision sets a practical precedent regarding procedural efficiency in multinational UPC cases.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court ruled that for reasons of fairness and convenience, the language of the proceedings should be changed to the language in which the patent was granted (English). The court also mandated that the Claimant provide translations of the Statement of Claim at its own expense, while deferring a final decision on costs until the end of the main proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Paris (FR) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
NJOY Netherlands B.V.vsVMR Products LLC
In a significant revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. successfully challenged VMR Products LLC's patent EP 3 456 214, which covers electronic vaporizers/e-cigarettes. The UPC Central Division found that the patent lacked inventive step and ordered its complete revocation across all relevant territories. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules regarding amendments and evidence in complex validity challenges before the Unified Patent Court.
Tiroler Rohre GmbHvsSSAB Swedish Steel GmbH, SSAB Europe Oy
This UPC appellate decision addressed an appeal concerning the allocation of legal costs following the withdrawal of a provisional measures application. The court confirmed that even when a case is closed by withdrawal under R. 265 VerfO, the general rules for separate cost determination (R. 150 ff. VerfO) apply. The appellate panel found no grounds to overturn the initial costs decision, which had already conducted a thorough and reasonable assessment of the incurred expenses.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc.vsMolecular Instruments, Inc.
In a significant decision regarding advanced diagnostics technology, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation involving RNAscope technology. The court dismissed the main infringement action brought by Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc., finding no grounds for infringement. Crucially, the court also rejected the request to revoke the patents (EP1910572 and EP2500439), thereby confirming their validity. This ruling provides clarity on the scope of protection for specialized biotech methods in the UPC.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vsZhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures against a Chinese defendant, the court addressed the critical issue of service failure under international conventions. Despite official notification from Chinese authorities that the company did not exist at the provided address, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted the applicant's request. The ruling established that if the applicant provides credible evidence verifying the accuracy of the registered address, prior attempts can be deemed good service, ensuring the applicant's urgent legal rights are protected.
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co, Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Vivo to stay the ongoing infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance (CFI). Vivo argued that an unprecedented jurisdictional question regarding active FRAND rate determination needed clarification before proceeding. The Court ultimately rejected this request, holding that VIVO did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances required under R. 21.2 RoP. This ruling reinforces the principle that main proceedings generally must continue unless truly extraordinary factors are present.
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.