Key takeaways
The Court of Appeal reviews ex officio whether a statement of appeal is validly signed under R. 224, R. 4.1 RoP, irrespective of when a party raises the objection
Even a belated objection by the respondent regarding the signature of the appellant’s statement of appeal must be examined by the Court on its own motion, since compliance with the formal filing requirements is not left to party disposition. Therefore, the Court rejected arguments that an objection to a signature was untimely or lacked legal interest
Under R. 4.1 RoP, electronic pleadings must be signed, but do not require qualified or advanced electronic signatures under EU Regulation 910/2014
Scanned handwritten (“wet-ink”) signatures of authorized representatives inserted into an electronically lodged pleading satisfy all formal requirements. The eIDAS Regulation leaves formal procedural signature requirements to Contracting Member States and the Court.
Secure CMS login authentication does not replace the requirement for document-level signatures under R. 4.1 RoP, R. 8.1 RoP, and Art. 48 UPCA
Electronically lodged pleadings must be signed by an authorized representative entitled to act before the Court. If a submission is not properly signed, it cannot be accepted as validly lodged under R. 224 RoP.
Decisions on changing the language of proceedings under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP are discretionary with limited appellate review, which is limited to errors in the exercise of that discretion
Appellate review is restricted to assessing whether the first-instance judge committed an error of discretion by failing to exercise, exceeding, or abusing that discretionary power when balancing the relevant interests and circumstances.
Regional domicile and SME protection weigh decisively against changing the language of proceedings under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323.3 RoP
Where all parties are established in the same language region and the claimant is a smaller enterprise relative to the defendant (cf. R. 370.8 RoP), these factors can justify maintaining the local language, even if English is used in exhibits, pre-litigation correspondence, or as a working language.
No cost decision is rendered in interlocutory appeals that do not terminate the underlying main proceedings
In interlocutory language-change appeals, a cost order is inappropriate because the dismissal of the appeal leaves the main infringement proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
Division
Court of Appeal (Luxembourg)
UPC number
UPC_CoA_73/2026
Type of proceedings
Appeal against an order refusing to change the language of proceedings (Art. 49(5) UPCA)
Parties
Appellants: Esko-Software BV, Esko-Graphics BV
Respondent: IN(k)Control BV
Patent
EP 3 841 735
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 4.1 RoP R. 8.1 RoP, R. 220.1(c) RoP, R. 224.1(b) RoP, R. 224.2(b) RoP, R. 286 RoP, R. 320 RoP, R. 323 RoP, R. 370.8 RoP, Art. 48 UPCA, Art. 49(5) UPCA
Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (eIDAS)
