Key takeaways
An application to change the language of proceedings before the Central Division is not a claim but an exceptional procedural application (Art. 49(6) UPCA, R. 334(h) RoP)
According to established case law, the term “case-management decision or order” (R. 333.1 RoP) is to be interpreted broadly. The rejection of an application to change the language of proceedings before the Central Division does not amount to a summary dismissal of a claim for lack of prospect of success, unlike in Microsoft/Suinno (UPC_CoA_454/2024). The defendants’ request is therefore treated as a case-management matter, not a decision on the merits.
Art. 49(6) UPCA fixes the language of the patent as the language of proceedings before the Central Division without exception
The RoP contains no mechanism allowing a change of language before the Central Division, unlike Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP, which apply only to local and regional divisions.
Decisions on the language of submissions and hearings remain case-management orders, whether granted or refused (R. 7.1 RoP, R. 105.3 RoP)
Pleadings must be filed in the language of proceedings unless otherwise provided (R. 7.1 RoP). The rapporteur may hold the interim conference in another language if the parties’ representatives agree (R. 105.3 RoP). According to the court’s practice, hearings may likewise be conducted in another language by party agreement.
Appeals against case-management orders of a judge-rapporteur or presiding judge generally require prior panel review under R. 333.1 RoP
A direct appeal under R. 220.2 RoP against a rapporteur’s or presiding judge’s order, without prior panel review, is inadmissible. A request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP is only available after a panel has refused leave to appeal.
The rapporteur’s power to grant leave to appeal is only an exception
The defendants unsuccessfully relied on the rapporteur’s power to grant leave to appeal when rejecting a preliminary objection (R. 19.7 RoP). The Court held this exception cannot be applied by analogy to a refusal of a language-change request.
A panel’s prior guidance does not implicitly delegate decision-making power to a single judge absent party consent (R. 345.4(a) RoP, R. 345.6 RoP, Art. 8(7) UPCA)
The panel in its earlier order of 17 August 2026 rejected the application filed in English and merely indicated that it would need to be resubmitted in German to be admissible. This could not be understood as an advance delegation of authority to the rapporteur to decide alone on the later filed German application. Moreover, R. 345.4(a) RoP is not applicable because delegation to a single judge in this type of proceeding requires the parties’ consent, which was absent here.
Division
Court of Appeal (appeal from Central Division Paris)
UPC number
UPC_CoA_149/2026, UPC_CoA_150/2026
Type of proceedings
Appeal against a case-management order on the language of proceedings
Parties
Appellants (Defendants before the Court of First Instance): [Redacted]
vs.
Respondent (Claimant before the Court of First Instance): SprintRay Inc.
Patent(s)
EP 3 762 212
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 49(6) UPCA, Rule 334(h) RoP, Rule 333.1 RoP, Rule 7.1 RoP, Rule 105.3 RoP, Rule 345.4(a) RoP, Rule 345.6 RoP
