Key takeaways
Rule 14.2(b) RoP is an exception to the general language-of-proceedings rules and must be interpreted restrictively (Rule 14.2(b) RoP, Art. 49(1), Art. 49(2) UPCA).
The provision requires proceedings to be conducted in the official language of the Contracting Member State only if two specific conditions are both met. As an exception, this rule cannot be broadly construed in favour of the party seeking a language change.
The two conditions of Rule 14.2(b) RoP are cumulative: defendant’s domicile in the Contracting Member State and exclusivity of jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA.
Both conditions must be satisfied simultaneously. First, the defendant must have its principal place of business in the relevant Contracting Member State. Second, the action must not be capable of being brought before any other local division under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA. If either condition fails, the exception does not apply.
The claimant bears the burden of proving non-applicability of the exception, assessed relative to the stage of the proceedings (Rule 14.2(b) RoP).
In the event of a dispute over the language of proceedings, the claimant must demonstrate that the conditions of Rule 14.2(b) RoP are not met. The standard of proof is calibrated to the preliminary nature of the objection at this early procedural stage.
A mere threat of infringement in another Contracting Member State suffices to establish jurisdiction of the respective local division (Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA).
Under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, an infringement action may be brought before the local division where actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur. Demonstrating infringement allegations in other Contracting Member States — including via websites or trade fairs — defeats the exclusivity condition of Rule 14.2(b) RoP.
The defendant’s actual language competence and business practices may serve as a supplementary factor confirming no prejudice to the right of defence.
Where the defendant’s website and product brochures are published in the language chosen by the claimant, this reinforces the conclusion that conducting proceedings in that language does not violate the defendant’s right to defence or the right to adversarial proceedings.
Division
Local Division Milan
UPC number
UPC_CFI_141/2026
Type of proceedings
Infringement action — preliminary objection on language of proceedings
Parties
Claimant: KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited
Defendant: PR Medical s.r.l.
Patent(s)
EP 2 575 590 B2
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 14.2(b) RoP, Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, Art. 49(1) UPCA, Art. 49(2) UPCA, Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA, R. 220.2 RoP
