Court Of Appeal, December 1, 2025, Appeal Against An Order Re. Change Of The Language Of Proceedings

1. Key takeaways

When deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings into the language of the patent on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances shall be taken into account. Relevant circumstances should primarily be related to the specific case and the position of the parties themselves, in particular the position of the defendant (headnote).

The CoA dismissed an appeal against an order by the President of the Court of First Instance changing the language of the proceedings from German to English, finding that the President "rightly exercised her discretion when assessing fairness" under the established case law of the CoA in Apple v Ona in particular for two reasons: First, English is the common language used in the relevant field of technology (wireless communication and mobile networks). Second, the language commonly used by both companies and especially within the group of the defendant as the working language and for the internal communication is English.

In contrast the CoA regarded the facts that there were parallel proceedings before a German Court and that the representatives and (at least) two jugdges of the panel deciding the case were German speaking as less relevant, because those were not circumstances related to the parties themselves. The party itself is then still dependent on translations of the statements and evidence lodged on either side which takes time and incurs costs to prepare or, where machine translations are used, to check and correct translations, in a context
where the defendant is bound to strict time limits to lodge its Statement of defense.

Interestingly, the CoA consulted the panel of the Local Division by way of analogy to R. 323.3 RoP before making its decision, and the LD's Presiding Judge confirmed that the language of the proceedings should not be changed again and that "English language objectively offers everyone the same ability to understand and express themselves".

2. Division

Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_838/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal against an order changing the language of the proceedings

5. Parties

APPELANT and CLAIMANT before the Court of First Instance:

Innovative Sonic Corporation (Taiwan, China)

RESPONDENTS and DEFENDANTS before the Court of First Instance:

1. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (Dongguan, PR China)
2. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd (Shenzhen, PR China)
3. Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. (Chongqing, PR China)
4. OROPE Germany GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)
5. OTECH Germany GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)
6. RealmeGermany GmbH (Frankfurt a.M., Germany)
7. Oleading B.V. (Rotterdam, The Netherlands)
8. Reflection Investment B.V. (Rotterdam, The Netherlands)
9. OTECH Italia S.r.l. (Milano, Italy)

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 765 731

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 323 RoP, Art. 49(5) 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.