Executive Summary
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by The Walt Disney Company group to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court found the application admissible and granted the request, citing fairness and consistency with previous rulings in related cases. This decision is significant as it reinforces the practical application of Article 49(5) UPCA, allowing parties to successfully petition for a language change based on the patent's grant language.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court ruled that the request for changing the language of proceedings to the language of grant (English) was admissible and merited. Based on fairness considerations and the position of all defendants, the court adopted the reasoning from previous parallel cases, thereby setting English as the official language for this proceeding.
Practitioner Note
This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KGvsHimson Engineering Private Limited
This UPC case involved Oerlikon Textile asserting infringement of EP2145848 against Himson Engineering, while Himson counter-sued for revocation. After extensive proceedings, including an Oral Hearing, both parties reached a transactional agreement to terminate the dispute. The Court formally accepted the withdrawal applications under Rule 265 ROP, declaring the case closed and confirming that legal costs would be mutually compensated.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna et al
In this procedural order, the UPC CFI addressed applications regarding claim amendments and late-filed evidence in a high-stakes biotech dispute between GSK and Moderna. The court granted GSK's request to amend its claims to cover new vaccine variants like mNEXSPIKE, recognizing the evolving nature of the technology. Simultaneously, the court rejected Moderna’s attempt to exclude crucial supporting arguments and exhibits from the proceedings, affirming the claimant's right to respond fully to the defense.
Network System Technologies LLC.vsAudi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request regarding the exchange of written pleadings during an appeal concerning security for costs. Audi AG successfully argued that it needed to correct certain facts submitted by NST, and the Court granted permission for additional submissions. This ruling reinforces the flexibility within the UPC's Rules of Procedure (RoP), allowing parties to refine their arguments even late in the written phase if a reasoned request is made.
BFexaQC AGvsNVIDIA Corporation
In this complex UPC case involving BFexaQC AG against NVIDIA Corporation, the court addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 743 812, which covers dynamic resource allocation in heterogeneous computing systems. Beyond the merits, the decision provided important procedural guidance regarding the non-binding nature of applicant statements during the grant phase and the conditions under which a conditional counterclaim for revocation can be handled.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, Université de RennesvsEPO
This UPC decision addressed an appeal challenging the EPO's rejection of a unitary effect application for EP3691518. The claimants, including Bodycap and CNRS, sought to overturn the administrative rejection based on minor procedural errors regarding their address details. However, the UPC upheld the EPO's decision, emphasizing strict adherence to deadlines and legal certainty in the context of unitary patent procedures. This case serves as a strong reminder that procedural compliance is mandatory when applying for unitary effect.
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.