UPC CFI 2020/2025
Dec 17, 2025·EP3762212 · DISPOSABLE 3D PRINTER CARTRIDGE
- Case details
- StatusWritten PhaseActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Claimants
- SprintRay Inc.Operating co.
Representatives- Florian Oliver Gunther Schmidt-Bogatzky-Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
- Paula Cürten-Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
- Division
- Paris CD
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringOther special machines
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Aug 20, 2026
- Last decision
- Aug 26, 2026
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Paris CD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Maximilian Haedicke | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tatyana Zhilova | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Kerstin Roselinger | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: SprintRay Inc. (4 cases)
3 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
- 2026-08-26Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: Order of the judge-rapporteur (Paris Central Division, 26 Aug 2026) in the joint revocation action UPC_CFI_2020/2025 and declaration-of-non-infringement action UPC_CFI_2034/2025 (SprintRay Inc. v two natural-person defendants, EP 3 762 212 B1): the defendants' renewed R. 9 RoP application to change the language of proceedings from German to English is rejected, as are the auxiliary requests to file in English and to hold the interim conference and oral hearing in English; the request to bring their own simultaneous interpreters at their own cost (R. 109 RoP) is granted; leave to appeal is granted.
Show the legal issues (3)
- R. 9 RoP application to change the language of proceedings (rejected)
- R. 109 RoP interpretation at a party's own cost (granted)
- leave to appeal granted
- 2026-08-20RevocationPublic
Summary: Paris Central Division panel order (Haedicke/Zhilova/Roselinger, 17 Aug 2026) in SprintRay Inc. v two Liechtenstein-resident patentees (names withheld) concerning EP 3 762 212 (revocation action UPC_CFI_2020/2025 and declaration of non-infringement action UPC_CFI_2034/2025): the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English is rejected because Art. 49(6) UPCA fixes the patent's language before the central division and neither R. 9.1 RoP nor analogy to Art. 49(5) UPCA / R. 323 RoP permits a change; the auxiliary requests to file pleadings and hold the interim conference and oral hearing in English, and the request for own-cost interpretation (filed in English), are also rejected; leave to appeal is granted.
Show the legal issues (4)
- No legal basis to change the language of proceedings before the central division (Art. 49(6) UPCA; R. 323 RoP not applicable by analogy)
- Application not filed in the language of proceedings is inadmissible
- R. 105.3 RoP interim conference language requires party agreement
- Leave to appeal under R. 220.2 RoP
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Order | 2026-10-20 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-10-20 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-16 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-16 | Not public |
| Further pleadings | 2026-10-16 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-14 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-14 | Not public |
| Further pleadings | 2026-10-14 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-12 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-12 | Not public |