Short Summary
This order concerns a procedural application by the defendants (Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd and Orope Germany GmbH) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. based on European patent EP 3349412. The claimant agreed to the language change but requested three weeks to provide English translations of the Statement of Claim and certain annexes, while the defendants requested two weeks. The President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language change to English and addressed the translation timeline.
Detailed Summary
Koninklijke KPN N.V. (the Claimant) filed a Statement of Claim on 23 January 2026 against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd and Orope Germany GmbH (the Defendants/Applicants) before the Local Division Düsseldorf, alleging infringement of European patent EP 3349412. The proceedings were initially conducted in German. The Defendants are represented by Rien Broekstra of Vossius & Brinkhof, while the Claimant is represented by Axel Verhauwen of Krieger Mes.
On 20 March 2026, the Defendants filed a procedural application pursuant to Rule 323 RoP requesting that the language of proceedings be changed from German to English, the language in which the patent at issue was granted. The Defendants further requested that the Claimant submit an English translation of the Statement of Claim, together with English translations of Annexes K10 and K17, within two weeks of the Court's order. The Claimant, in its written comments submitted on 1 April 2026, agreed to the change of language from German to English but requested a time period of three weeks to provide the English translations of the Statement of Claim and the relevant annexes.
& Analysis: The President of the Court of First Instance noted that, as expressly agreed by the Claimant, the language of the proceedings should be changed to the language in which the patent was granted, namely English. The Court relied on Rule 323.3 RoP, which provides that the President, having consulted the panel of the division, may order that the language in which the patent was granted shall be the language of the proceedings and may make the order conditional on specific translation or interpretation arrangements. The Court further referenced Rule 324 RoP, which states that an application under Rule 321.1 or 323.1 shall specify whether existing pleadings and other documents should be translated and at whose cost, and that if the parties cannot agree, the judge-rapporteur or the President of the Court of First Instance shall decide in accordance with Rule 323.3. The Court emphasized that, in the context of an agreement to change the language of proceedings, it must consider the interests of all parties involved when deciding on the time limit for providing translations. The only remaining issue was the time limit within which the translations should be provided.
Final Order & Ruling: The President ordered that the language of the proceedings be changed to English, effective as from the date of the Order, with all further procedural steps to continue in English. The Court addressed the translation timeline, balancing the interests of both parties in determining the appropriate time period for the Claimant to provide English translations of the Statement of Claim and the relevant annexes.
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 Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, Orope Germany GmbH vs Koninklijke KPN N.V 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.