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).
Division
Local Division Milan
UPC number
UPC_CFI_1146/2026
Type of proceedings
Infringement proceedings
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
Patent(s)
EP 2 164 678
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)
