- in United Kingdom
- within Technology topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
A claimant’s demonstrated capacity to litigate in English in comparable proceedings may outweigh party size and domicile in a change-of-language decision under Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP (cf. headnote, mn. 21).
Under the CoA case law (Order of 17 April 2024, UPC_CoA_101/2024, para. 22-25 and Order of 18 September 2024, UPC_CoA_354/2024, para. 26-27), changing the language of proceedings under Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP requires an overall assessment of all relevant circumstances – such as the language most common in the technical field and the parties’ nationality, domicile, size, internal working language and capacity for coordination. Where the balance of interests is equal, the defendant’s position becomes decisive, since the claimant chooses forum and timing while the defendant faces strict deadlines under the UPC framework (mn. 10 et seqq.).
Significant in this case: Although the claimants qualified as SMEs headquartered in Germany – a factor that, as a general rule, weighed in favour of retaining German, i.e., the language in which the action was originally brought, to ensure fair access to justice –, the LD Mannheim held that this was not decisive. The claimants had themselves brought comparable parallel infringement actions in English, demonstrating their capacity to litigate in English, while the defendants – part of the English-speaking Google group – faced a structural disadvantage in coordinating and translating their defence in German within tight deadlines (mn. 20, 21).
Takeaway, especially for SMEs: A claimant’s own choice to litigate in English in comparable matters can be held against them when a defendant seeks to change the language of proceedings under R. 323 RoP.
2. Division
Local Division Mannheim
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_2082/2026
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement – Application to change the language of proceedings pursuant to R. 323 RoP
5. Parties
Applicants / Defendants (in the main infringement proceedings): Google LLC, Google Germany GmbH
vs.
Respondents / Claimants (in the main infringement proceedings): BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 614 263, EP 3 743 812
7. Jurisdictions
UPC – CFI
8. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 323 RoP
R. 321 RoP
R. 324 RoP
R. 109 RoP
R. 220(c) RoP
Art. 49(1) UPCA
Art. 49(2) UPCA
Art. 49(3) UPCA
Art. 49(5) UPCA
Art. 49(6) UPCA
Art. 73(2)(a) 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.
[View Source]