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

This 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, SprintRay Inc. of Los Angeles, USA, represented by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, filed both a declaration of non-infringement action and a revocation action against the defendants, two parties based in Liechtenstein, represented by Bird & Bird (Netherlands) LLP. The patent at issue was granted in German, and pursuant to Rule 46.6 RoP, the proceedings had been conducted in German as the language of the patent.

On 1 August 2026, the defendants filed submissions in English requesting, under Rule 9 RoP, that the language of proceedings be changed to English. In the alternative, they requested 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 under Rule 109 RoP. The defendants argued that they were in a weaker position before the Central Division because they could not choose the language, that English is the predominant language of the unitary patent system and the European Patent Office, that the technical documentation was largely in English, that prior correspondence had been in English, and that analogous application of Article 49(3), (4) and (5) UPCA and Rules 321 et seq. RoP was necessary to correct this imbalance. The plaintiff opposed the requests, arguing that German was the statutory language of proceedings before the Central Division as the language of the patent, that the legislative text was clear and contained no exceptions, and that Article 49(6) UPCA was a conclusive, non-analogizable provision. The plaintiff further noted that the defendants, as inventors and patent proprietors domiciled in Liechtenstein, had themselves chosen to file the patent in German and must expect related disputes to be conducted in German.

The presiding judge referred the matter to the panel under Rule 102.1 RoP as a question of fundamental importance. The court first addressed admissibility, noting that under Article 49(6) UPCA the language of proceedings was German and that the defendants' requests, having been filed in English, were inadmissible as not being in the language of proceedings. Nevertheless, the court addressed the merits for reasons of efficiency under Recital 4 of the RoP.

On the merits, the court held that Article 49(6) UPCA unambiguously establishes the language of the patent as the language of proceedings before the Central Division, and that the legislature deliberately did not provide a procedure for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division comparable to Rule 323.1 and 323.2 RoP applicable to local and regional divisions. The court rejected the defendants' reliance on Rule 9.1 RoP, holding that the general powers conferred by that rule are aimed at efficient management of proceedings and cannot be used to supplement the exhaustive language rules of Article 49 UPCA. The court further rejected the argument for analogous application of the language-change provisions applicable to local and regional divisions, finding no unintentional regulatory gap: the absence of a correction mechanism for the Central Division was a deliberate legislative choice, not an oversight. This conclusion was reinforced by Rule 39 RoP, which contemplates that proceedings transferred to the Central Division, including revocation counterclaims, are conducted in the language of the patent and that the Central Division may even require translation of prior submissions. The court therefore found no room for an individual assessment of the parties' interests.

The court also rejected the subsidiary requests. The request to file submissions in English was rejected because the language of proceedings is binding and there is no legal basis for deviation; prior art may be submitted in English if the court dispenses with translation under Article 51(1) UPCA. The request to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English was rejected because Rule 105.3 RoP requires agreement of the parties' representatives for deviation from the language of proceedings in interim conferences, which was not present, and because the language of proceedings is mandatory for the oral hearing. The request for permission to bring interpreters at the defendants' own cost was rejected as inadmissible due to non-compliance with the language of proceedings, though the court expressed no substantive objection and suggested the defendants reformulate the request in German or contact the registry directly.

Finally, the court granted leave to appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP, finding that the question of whether a change of language of proceedings is possible before the Central Division is of fundamental importance. The operative order rejected all of the defendants' requests.