HMD Global Oy v. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (Language of Proceedings)

This order concerns an application by HMD Global Oy, the Defendant in the main infringement proceedings (ACT_26409/2025, UPC_CFI_495/2025), to change the language of the proceedings from German to English under Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP. The infringement action was brought by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. on 4 June 2025, based on European patent EP2609590, which was granted in English. The patent relates to audio processing and audio decoding technology.

HMD Global Oy argued that the change was necessary for reasons of fairness, contending that the evidence and annexes were predominantly in English, that the company is based in Finland (a non-German speaking country), and that it communicates with its legal representatives and technical experts exclusively in English. HMD Global further argued that prior exchanges between the parties had been conducted in English, and that conducting the proceedings in German would impose significant translation costs and delays on its defence. HMD Global also noted that the Claimant, being internationally active, would not be disadvantaged by the change.

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft opposed the application, arguing that a change of language cannot be made solely for reasons of convenience and that the expenses of the dispute could reasonably be expected of a multinational company operating in 200 countries. Fraunhofer emphasized that its internal coordination for the proceedings was carried out exclusively with the Fraunhofer Institute 'IIS' in Erlangen and other German entities, with its main offices in Munich, and that the choice of German as the language of proceedings was deliberate. However, Fraunhofer indicated that it would not object to the change if the Court deemed it appropriate, and agreed that no translation of existing pleadings would be necessary.

The President of the Court of First Instance, Florence Butin, applied the criteria established by the Court of Appeal in UPC_CoA_101/2024 and UPC_CoA_354/2024, which require consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the language commonly used in the relevant technology, the nationality and domicile of the parties, their respective size, and the position of the defendant. The Court noted that the language most commonly used in audio processing technology is English, which was not disputed. While acknowledging that multinational companies are generally expected to have adequate resources to handle international disputes in different languages, the Court emphasized that due consideration must be given to the need for such entities to coordinate and communicate internally in view of their defence. The Court found that for a Finnish company, being sued in German involves significant time constraints and translation work, whereas Fraunhofer, as an internationally active research institute, regularly communicates in English in its daily work and would not face considerable additional effort.

Applying the general principles that being sued in the language of the patent is generally not unfair to the claimant, and that the position of the defendant prevails in the overall balancing of interests when both parties are in a comparable situation, the Court granted the application. The Court further noted that the change could be implemented at an early stage without causing delays, as HMD Global had filed the application timely before its Statement of Defence. The order was issued without additional translation or interpretation arrangements pursuant to Rule 324 RoP, as both parties agreed none were required. An appeal against the order could be brought within 15 calendar days of notification under Article 73(2)(a) UPCA and Rule 220(c) RoP.