Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Mannheim Local Division » LD Mannheim, April 15, 2024, order pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings), UPC_CFI_410/2023

LD Mannheim, April 15, 2024, order pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings), UPC_CFI_410/2023

Ralf Heddergott

2 min Reading time

Table of Contents

  1. Key takeaways
  2. Division
  3. UPC number
  4. Type of proceedings
  5. Parties
  6. Patent(s)
  7. Body of legislation / Rules

Download decision(s) (PDF)

Key takeaways

Change of language of the proceedings into the language in which the patent was granted

✓

The decision whether or not to change the language of the proceedings into the language in which the patent was granted shall be determined with regard to the respective interests at stake that has to be weighted, without it being necessary to constitute a disproportionate disadvantage. A fairness issue can occur if one party compared to the other(s), is remarkably disadvantaged by the conditions in which it has to organize its defence due to the language of the proceedings. Inconvenience and costs incurred in the event of parallel related proceedings in different languages is not sufficient to allow the requested change pursuant to R. 323 RoP.

Division

LD Mannheim

UPC number

UPC_CFI_410/2023

Type of proceedings

infringement action

Parties

Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Patent(s)

EP4074373

European Patent with unitary effect

Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP

2024-04-15_UPC_CFI_4102023Download

Was the article helpful?

Categories

Tags

More exciting articles on similar topics

Content not to be missed

  • Hamburg Local Division

    LD Hamburg, April 7, 2026, final order, UPC_CFI_2255/2025

    Universal jurisdiction doctrine consolidated: The panel — departing from its own earlier position in Dyson/Dreame I (UPC_CFI_387/2025) and following the Court of Appeal’s ruling (UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025) — held that the UPC is a court of a member state within the meaning of Art. 71a BR. Its territory encompasses all Contracting Member States. Consequently, the UPC possesses universal jurisdiction …
    →
  • Hamburg Local Division

    LD Hamburg, March 31, 2026, alignment of deadlines, UPC_CFI_360/2026

    A minor deviation in deadlines for multiple defendants makes a request to align them reasonable for procedural efficiency, as per the court’s discretion under R. 9.3(a) RoP. : Given that the current deadlines would deviate by only 20 days, the defendants’ request for alignment of the time limit for filing the Statement of Defence is …
    →
  • Paris Local Division

    LD Paris, March 23, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1963/2025

    Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA does not require a direct commercial link between the “anchor defendant” and each of the other defendants, but only a commercial link between all the defendants: The commercial link is assessed flexibly to avoid multiplying parallel proceedings and the risk of contradictory decisions. This applies in particular in cases where all defendants …
    →

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field