SprintRay Inc. v. Liechtenstein (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)

The order was issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division Paris, on 17 August 2026, in two consolidated proceedings (UPC_CFI_2020/2025 and UPC_CFI_2034/2025) concerning European Patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The plaintiff is SprintRay Inc., a company based in Los Angeles, USA, represented by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP. The defendants are two parties based in Liechtenstein, represented by Bird & Bird (Netherlands) LLP. The plaintiff filed both a declaration of non-infringement action and a revocation action against the defendants on 17 December 2025. The patent at issue was granted in German, and pursuant to Rule 46.6 RoP, the proceedings were conducted in German as the language of the patent.

On 1 August 2026, the defendants filed requests in English seeking to change the language of proceedings to English, relying on Rule 9 RoP. They argued that defendants before the Central Division have a weaker starting position since they cannot choose the language, and that an analogous application of Article 49(3), (4), and (5) UPCA was necessary. They further argued that English is the predominant language of the Unitary Patent system and the European Patent Office, that the technical documentation is largely in English, and that prior correspondence was conducted in English. As auxiliary requests, they sought permission to file submissions in English, to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English, and to bring their own interpreters at their own cost. The plaintiff opposed all requests, arguing that German is the statutory language of proceedings before the Central Division as the language of the patent, that the statutory text is clear and contains no exceptions, and that Article 49(6) UPCA is a conclusive, non-analogizable provision. The plaintiff noted that the defendants are inventors and patent holders who filed the patent in German and must expect proceedings to be conducted in German.

The court first addressed admissibility, noting that under Article 49(6) UPCA, the language of proceedings is German and is mandatory, and that the defendants' requests filed in English were therefore inadmissible, though the court proceeded to address the merits for reasons of efficiency. On the merits, the court held that Article 49(6) UPCA establishes that the language of proceedings before the Central Division is the language in which the patent was granted. The legislature did not provide a procedure for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division, unlike for Local and Regional Divisions under Rule 323 RoP. Rule 9.1 RoP's general powers for efficient case management cannot supplement the language rules under Article 49 UPCA. The court further held that analogous application of the language change provisions for Local and Regional Divisions was not possible because there was no unintentional regulatory gap; the absence of a correction mechanism for the Central Division was a deliberate legislative decision. Rule 39 RoP confirmed this result, as it provides that proceedings referred to the Central Division must be conducted in the language of the patent. The court found no room for an individual assessment of the parties' interests. The auxiliary request to file submissions in English was also rejected, as there is no legal basis for deviating from the language of proceedings. The auxiliary request to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English was rejected, noting that under Rule 105.3 RoP, deviation from the language of proceedings in the interim conference requires agreement of the parties' representatives, which was not present, and the oral hearing must be conducted in the language of proceedings. The request for simultaneous interpretation at the defendants' own cost was rejected as inadmissible due to the wrong language used, though the court expressed no objections in principle and suggested the defendants reformulate the request in German or contact the registry directly. The court granted leave to appeal, finding the question of whether a language change is possible before the Central Division to be of fundamental importance under Rule 220.2 RoP.