Short Summary
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Esko-Software BV and Esko-Graphics BV) to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English in an infringement action brought by In(k)control BV based on European Patent EP3841735. The President of the Court of First Instance addressed whether further submissions beyond those foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP should be considered, and weighed the relevance of English being the language of the patent and the technology field against the particular circumstances of the parties' size and domicile. The order was issued following consultation with the panel of the Local Division Brussels.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the President of the Court of First Instance in proceedings before the Local Division Brussels on 27 April 2026, under case number UPC_CFI_871/2026. The proceedings concern an infringement action based on European Patent EP3841735, titled "Method and system for improving the print quality." The Claimant in the main proceedings is In(k)control BV, a company domiciled in Deinze, Belgium. The Defendants in the main proceedings (the Applicants in this language application) are Esko-Software BV and Esko-Graphics BV, both domiciled in Ghent, Belgium. All parties are located in the Flemish Region of Belgium, where Dutch is the official language.
By a statement of claim filed on 10 March 2026, In(k)control BV initiated infringement proceedings against the Esko defendants. On 16 April 2026, the Defendants filed a procedural application under R. 323 RoP requesting that the language of the proceedings be changed from Dutch to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The Claimant submitted written comments on 20 April 2026 opposing the change, and the Applicants replied with a further statement on 23 April 2026. The Claimant objected to this further reply, requesting that the Court reject it or alternatively grant an opportunity to respond.
The Applicants argued that English should be the language of the proceedings because: (1) the patent was granted in English and the entire EPO procedure was conducted in English, with technical terms having no common Dutch equivalent; (2) both parties had exchanged legal and technical arguments in English during the pre-contentious phase; and (3) English is predominantly used in the relevant technological field. The Claimant opposed the change, relying primarily on the fact that all parties have their registered offices in the Flemish Region of Belgium where Dutch is the official language.
& Analysis
The President of the Court of First Instance addressed two key issues. First, regarding procedural efficiency, the Court held that a rapid decision on a request to change the language of the proceedings benefits both parties and effective case management. As a general principle, further submissions that are not foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP should therefore not be considered. Second, on the substantive assessment of the parties' interests under R. 323 RoP, the Court held that while English is predominantly used in the field of technology in question and would provide an advantage in conducting the dispute in that language, this factor does not outweigh the relevance of particular circumstances relating to the respective size and domicile of the companies involved. The panel of the Local Division Brussels was consulted in accordance with R. 323.3 RoP prior to the issuance of the order.
Final Order & Ruling
The order was issued on 27 April 2026 following consultation with the panel of the Local Division Brussels pursuant to R. 323.3 RoP. The President determined that further submissions beyond those foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP should not generally be considered, and that the predominance of English in the relevant technological field does not outweigh the particular circumstances relating to the size and domicile of the parties involved when assessing the interests of the parties under R. 323 RoP.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Brussels (BE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in ESKO-SOFTWARE BV, ESKO-GRAPHICS BV vs IN(K)CONTROL BV is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.