Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 MARCH 2026

LD Düsseldorf, March 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1849/2025

Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Contributor
Bardehle Pagenberg

Bardehle Pagenberg

IP practitioners with technical expertise As one of Europe’s leading IP law firms, BARDEHLE...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bardehle Pagenberg

The President applied the Court of Appeal’s multi-factor framework, considering case-related circumstances (predominant language in the technology field...

GermanyIntellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Fairness-based language change requires balancing all relevant circumstances; if interests are equal, the defendant’s position is decisive (Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP)

The President applied the Court of Appeal’s multi-factor framework, considering case-related circumstances (predominant language in the technology field, language of exhibits) and party-related circumstances (nationality, domicile, size, internal working language, coordination possibilities).

Where the balancing results in a comparable situation for both sides, the defendant’s position prevails because the claimant enjoys flexibility in choosing forum and timing, while the defendant is bound by strict deadlines (Art. 49(5) UPCA).

For a claimant who chose the language of the patent, conducting proceedings in that language cannot generally be considered unfair. The Technical University of Munich’s objection was found unpersuasive because it relied solely on the general principle that the applicant in the main proceedings had the right to choose German and the fact that only one defendant was registered outside Germany, without demonstrating any specific negative impact on its own position.

In accelerated proceedings, defendants’ need for efficient communication without translation carries particular weight (Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP)

In accelerated proceedings according to R. 192 and 199 et seq. RoP, the burden of translation costs and resulting delays on a non-German-speaking defendant is a significant factor in the balancing exercise, reinforcing the case for changing the language to English.

Art. 49(5) UPCA does not prescribe a timeframe for filing such a request. However, consistent Court of Appeal case law recommends filing before the Statement of Defence is lodged (UPC_CoA_207/2024, order of 5 September 2024).

2. Division

LD Düsseldorf

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_1849/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Application to change the language of proceedings (R. 323 RoP)

5. Parties

Applicant/Defendant: HyGear B.V.

Respondent/ Applicant: Topsoe A/S

6. Patent

EP 3 802 413

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 49 UPCA, R. 323 RoP

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from