Short Summary
An appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of proceedings. The appellant, Hybridgenerator ApS, appealed an order of the Copenhagen Local Division that declined to order the respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for failure to comply with an earlier order. With the agreement of both parties, the Court of Appeal changed the language of the appeal proceedings from Danish to English, finding that the change would shorten the timeframe for adjudication without causing disadvantage to the parties.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in case UPC_CoA_233/2025 (APL_13146/2025), concerning patent EP 4 238 202. The appellant, Hybridgenerator ApS (a Danish company based in Årslev), represented by attorney-at-law Mikkel Kleis of Patrade, appealed an order of the Copenhagen Local Division dated 3 March 2024 (ORD_10371/2025, ACT_47484/2024, UPC_CFI_492/2024). The respondents were HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS, and a fifth respondent (name redacted), all based in Årslev, Denmark, represented by attorney-at-law Kenneth Kvistgaard-Aaholm of Gorrissen Federspiel and COPA Copenhagen Patents.
In the impugned order, the Local Division decided not to order the respondents to pay periodic penalty payments set by the Court in an earlier order of 4 September 2024. Hybridgenerator appealed and requested that the respondents be ordered to pay penalties to the Court for failure to comply with that earlier order.
The judge-rapporteur, after consulting the panel, proposed pursuant to Rule 322 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) that the language of the appeal proceedings be changed from Danish to English. Hybridgenerator accepted the change, conditionally agreeing to submit English translations of the Statement of Appeal and annexes, and requested that translation costs be included in the recoverable costs of the proceedings under Article 69 UPCA. The respondents, while expressing reservations in principle given that both parties are Danish companies represented by Danish counsel, stated they would not oppose the change, but requested that any translation be done at the sole expense of the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal, applying Article 49(4) UPCA and Rule 322 RoP, held that with the agreement of the parties, the competent panel may decide on the use of the language in which the patent was granted as the language of proceedings on grounds of convenience and fairness. The Court found that the appeal proceedings were of limited scope, that a change to English would shorten the timeframe for adjudication and be convenient for both the Court and the parties, that the parties understood English and suffered no disadvantages, and that the fairness requirement was met. The Court further held that the language change could be made without requiring the parties to provide translations, as the Court of Appeal would make translations for internal use at its own expense, which was sufficient given that the judge-rapporteur understood Danish.
The Court ordered that the language of the appeal shall be English, with translations of existing pleadings and other documents for internal use to be done by the Court of Appeal at its own cost. The parties were ordered to inform the Court, no later than 16 May 2025, whether they preferred an oral hearing or agreed to dispense with one, and if they preferred a hearing, whether they agreed to it being held by videoconference. The panel consisted of presiding judge Rian Kalden, judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, and judge Patricia Rombach.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Hybridgenerator ApS vs HGSystem Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns an application by Hurom Co., Ltd. under Rule 262A RoP to classify the breakdown of attorneys' hours worked as confidential information in cost proceedings related to EP 2 028 981. The court held that the breakdown of hours worked qualifies as confidential information protected under R. 262A RoP, as it relates to attorney-client privileged information. However, the court rejected the Applicant's request to restrict access to only the Respondents' lawyers, holding that such restriction would violate the Respondents' right to be heard under R. 262A.6 RoP.
Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLCvsRiVOLUTiON GmbH
Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC (part of the Johnson & Johnson group) sought provisional measures against RiVOLUTiON GmbH, a German distributor of medical products, alleging infringement of European patent EP 3 689 262 relating to staple cartridges for surgical stapling devices. Cilag argued that Rivolution's distribution of infringing products from Bluesail Medical and David Medical, as well as its planned Bariatric Study using these products, constituted patent infringement. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague, dismissed the application for provisional measures and ordered Cilag to pay EUR 80,000 in interim costs to Rivolution.
Dainese S.p.A.vsAlpinestars S.p.A. and Others
Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in a patent infringement action concerning EP'117 and EP'364, applied for leave to limit its claims under Rule 263.3 RoP after the EPO Board of Appeal issued a negative opinion on EP'117, seeking to discontinue claims related to EP'117 while maintaining those regarding EP'364. The defendants argued the application should be treated as a partial withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP, entitling them to cost reimbursement. The Milan Local Division held that Rule 263.3 RoP governs the limitation of claims, granted Dainese leave to limit its claims, rejected the request for partial reimbursement of court fees, and postponed the costs decision to the main proceedings.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINEvsHELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
Unified Patent Court decision.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AGvsAWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a.
This order concerns the determination of the value of the case for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs in proceedings before the Milan Local Division. The Claimant, Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, valued the infringement case at EUR 2,000,000, while the Defendants disputed the underlying figures. The judge-rapporteur set the value of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 2,000,000 each, subject to possible reconsideration by the Panel at the merits stage.
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.