LD Brussels, April 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_871/2026

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.

Explore Firm Details

The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court examined an application to change the language of proceedings in a patent dispute between Dutch companies. The decision explores how factors such as party size, domicile, and technological context influence language selection, even when the patent's original language is commonly used in the relevant technical field.

Belgium Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Privacy and Transport topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Unsolicited submissions in a language change application are generally inadmissible to ensure a rapid decision (headline 1)

A rapid decision on a language-change request benefits both parties and case management. Submissions not foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP and filed without prior authorisation are inadmissible and will be disregarded.

A language-change application under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP may be filed before the Statement of Defence; R. 19.2(a) RoP service formalities do not apply

Art. 49(5) UPCA does not require the language change application to be included in the Statement of Defence. R. 323.3 RoP must be interpreted to allow earlier filing, ensuring any language change is implemented as soon as possible.

R. 19(c) RoP, permitting preliminary objections on the language of the Statement of Claim, is limited to R. 14 RoP (Art. 49(1) and (2) UPCA). An application under R. 323 RoP is based on the distinct mechanism of Art. 49(5) UPCA and is therefore not subject to R. 19.2(a) RoP.

When deciding on a language change, the parties’ size and domicile can outweigh the advantage of using the patent’s language, even if common in the technology field (headline 2)

The President of the Court dismissed the application under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP to change the language of the proceedings from Dutch (chosen by the claimant) to English, the language of the patent:

A significant disparity in size between a small enterprise claimant and a large multinational defendant was a decisive “specific circumstance” that supported denying the defendant’s request to change the language.

The shared domicile of all parties in the same linguistic territory was a valid reason to maintain the local language, as the defendant failed to demonstrate any significant disadvantage.

2. Division

Local Division Brussels

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_871/2026

4. Type of proceedings

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

5. Parties

Applicants (Defendants in main proceedings): Esko-Software BV and Esko-Graphics BV

Respondent (Claimant in main proceedings): In(k)control BV

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 841 735

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 49(1) UPCA, Art. 49(5) UPCA, Art. 73.2(a) UPCA, R. 19.2(a) RoP, R. 19(c) RoP, R. 220(c) RoP, R. 321-324 RoP, R. 323.2 RoP, R. 370.8(a) 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.

[View Source]