1. Key takeaways
Criteria for the decision under Article 49(5) UPCA
Unlike Art. 49(4) UPCA, Art. 49(5) UPCA does not mention convenience as a criteria, only fairness. If a claimant is proficient in English and German, claimant's choice of German as the language of the proceedings is merely one of convenience and thus not relevant under Art. 49(5) UPCA.
Application of Article 49(5) UPCA in the case at hand requires change of the language of the proceedings to English
The UPC Court of Appeal emphasized the primacy of fairness when deciding on the language of proceedings under Article 49(5) UPCA. The CoA overturned a decision of the President of the Court of First Instance that did not sufficiently consider the practical disadvantages for the defendant if the proceedings were to be held in German.
The Court considered that the Appellant's internal working language was English and that its technical experts were based in the USA. Requiring the Appellant to litigate in German would thus create a significant disadvantage.
2. Division
Court of Appeal Luxembourg
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_354/2024
APL_38948/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Appeal against a decision on the language of proceedings
5. Parties
Appellant (Defendant in the main proceedings): Apple Inc. et
al.
Respondent (Claimant in the main proceedings): Ona Patents SL
6. Patent
EP 2 263 098
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Article 49(5) UPCA
Rule 323 RoP
D0C58A32692873087A0BC7C1C125A237_en
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.
