LD Dusseldorf, May 30, 2024, Order Pursuant R. 323 RoP, UPC_CFI_26/2024

Bardehle Pagenberg


BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
Art. 49.5 UPCA must be interpreted in such a way that the decision on whether or not to change the language of the proceedings to the language...
Germany Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

1. Key takeaways

In infringement proceedings, the position of the defendant requesting the language of the proceedings to be changed into the language of the patent is decisive, if in the overall assessment the result of the balancing of interest is the same

Art. 49.5 UPCA must be interpreted in such a way that the decision on whether or not to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent was granted must be determined considering the respective interests at stake, without requiring it to constitute a disproportionate disadvantage. It is thus sufficient that the language initially chosen is significantly detrimental to the Applicant. All relevant circumstances must be taken into account, especially related to the specific case, such as the language most commonly used in the relevant technology, and the position of the parties, including their nationality, domicile, respective size, and how they could be affected by the requested change. To change the language, in the overall assessment, the position of the party requesting the change of language must be decisive, in the event that the result of the balancing of interest is the same. Since the claimant in infringement proceedings generally has had the choice of language of the patent, with the ensuing possibility that the claimant/pantentee may have to conduct legal proceedings in that language, as a general rule, the language of the patent as the language of the proceedings cannot be considered to be unfair in respect to the claimant.

Nationality and native language of judges does not matter

The nationality and native language of the judges overseeing the case cannot be considered in relation with the quality of the decision to be delivered and the efficiency of the proceedings.

2. Division

Local Division Dusseldorf

3. UPC number


4. Type of proceedings

proceedings pursuant R. 323 RoP (language of the proceeedings)

5. Parties

Samsung Electronics GmbH; Samsung Electronics France, S.A.S.; Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.; Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Headwater Research LLC

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 110 069

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 323 RoP, Art. 49 UPCA

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

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More