LD Milan, July 28, 2026, Request To Change The Language Of The Proceedings, UPC_CFI_1146/2026

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

This page appears to be a security verification checkpoint that temporarily blocks access while validating the incoming request. The system implements protective measures to distinguish legitimate users from automated traffic or potential security threats.

Germany Technology

Article Insights

Sabrina Hütt’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Technology topic(s)
in European Union
in European Union
in European Union
in European Union
in European Union
in European Union

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Technology topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

The request to change the language of proceedings may be lodged prior to the statement of defense

Art. 49 (5) does not require the application for a language change to be included in the statement of defence. R. 323.3 must accordingly be interpreted in such a manner that it does not preclude the lodging of the application beforehand (headnote 1, sec. 9).

This interpretation ensures that the requested change, should it be granted, is implemented as early as possible to limit its impact on the course of the proceedings. This aligns with the general principles of efficiency and flexibility as provided for by Art. 41 (3) and 52 (1) UPCA and point 2 of the preamble of the UPC RoP (headnote 1, sec. 9 and UPC_CoA_207/2024).

Art. 49 (5) UPCA shall prevail in the event of a conflict between this provision and corresponding Rules (sec. 9).

In the event where the outcome of the balancing of interests (regarding the language of the proceedings) is equal, the position of the defendant(s) prevails (headnote 2, sec. 24)

In the event that the result of the balancing of interests is equal, the CoA found that the emphasis placed “in particular” on the position of the defendant under Art. 49 (5) UPCA is justified by the flexibility afforded to the claimant which frequently has the choice of where to file its action and can generally choose the most convenient timeframe to draft its statement of claim, while the defendant is directly bound by strict deadlines. The position of the defendant(s) is consequently the decisive factor if both parties are in a comparable situation (sec. 14).

Parties’ domicile in countries where the language of the proceedings initially chosen is or is not an official language is important to decide on an application pursuant to R. 323 RoP. However, consideration must also be given to the need for coordination and rapid communication among all Defendants (headnote 3, sec. 25)

The language skills of the representatives do not change the fact that the parties themselves will exchange more efficiently in their common working language (sec. 26 and UPC_CoA_101/2024).

2. Division

Local Division Milan

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_1146/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement proceedings

5. Parties

Applicants (Defendants in the main proceedings): Bystronic Laser AG, Bystronic Austria GmbH, Bystronic Italia S.r.l., Isochronic AG

Respondent (Claimant in the main proceedings): ASTES4 SA

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 164 678

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 41 (3), 49, 52 (1) UPCA (in particular Art. 49 (5) UPCA), R. 321, 322, 323, 324 RoP (in particular R. 323.3 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]