Short Summary
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 4 108 413. The court clarified that the claimant validly chose English as the language of the proceedings by filing its statement of claim in English and designating English pursuant to Art. 49(2) UPCA, since English is the language of the patent-in-suit and the claimant alleged infringement in multiple member states.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by Judge Böttcher of the Mannheim Local Division on 30 May 2025 in case UPC_CFI_745/2024 (Application No. 63407/2024), concerning European patent EP 4 108 413. The claimant, Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH (represented by Holger Stratmann), brought a patent infringement action against the defendant, CeraCon GmbH (represented by Matthias Sonntag), alleging infringing acts in several member states to the UPCA, including Germany and Italy. The defendant is domiciled in Germany.
The core procedural dispute concerned the language of the proceedings. The claimant filed its statement of claim in English, which is the language of the patent-in-suit, and designated English as the language of the proceedings. The defendant responded to the statement of claim in English. The claimant additionally made formal requests to use English as the language of proceedings, which it characterized as a precautionary measure. The claimant specified its request as primarily an auxiliary request under Art. 49(3) UPCA and secondarily under Art. 49(5) UPCA, arguing that the defendant had at least implicitly consented to the use of English by submitting all its pleadings in English. The defendant did not comment on the matter.
The court reasoned that the claimant's requests to use English were not subject to a decision because the claimant's choice of English was already effective. By filing its statement of claim in English and designating English as the language of proceedings under Art. 49(2) UPCA, the claimant had validly chosen English. The court found this choice to be valid because English is the language of the patent-in-suit, and since the claimant alleged infringement throughout multiple relevant member states (particularly Germany and Italy), the exclusion under R. 14(b) RoP did not apply. The court further noted that the claimant could have filed the statement of claim under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA in Italy and was not limited to filing in Germany as the defendant's principal place of business.
The final order, issued for clarification purposes, determined that the claimant had validly chosen English as the language of the proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH vs Respondent 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.