UPC CFI 871/2026

At the UPC: In(k)control BV (2 cases)·Esko-Graphics BV (2 cases)

• 2026-09-16
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: Brussels Local Division order under R. 9.3 RoP (judge-rapporteur Granata, 16 Sep 2026) in In(k)control BV v Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV (EP 3 841 735): on the parties' joint request the written-procedure schedule is adjusted, extending Esko's deadline for the statement of defence (and any revocation counterclaim) to 2 Nov 2026 and In(k)control's reply deadline to 2 Feb 2027, and the court notes Esko's withdrawal of its R. 9.3 and R. 220.2 RoP requests of 15 Sep 2026.

  Show the legal issues (2)

  • Extension of time limits on joint request under R. 9.3 RoP
  • Withdrawal of a request for leave to appeal under R. 220.2 RoP
• 2026-09-16
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: Brussels Local Division order under R. 158 RoP (panel Granata/Knijff/Voß, 16 Sep 2026) in In(k)control BV v Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV (EP 3 841 735): on Esko's application, the claimant is ordered to provide security for costs of EUR 75,000 within 21 days (Esko sought EUR 400,000, In(k)control offered EUR 19,000); the dispute is provisionally valued at EUR 1,000,000 (infringement EUR 500,000, announced revocation counterclaim EUR 500,000), giving a EUR 112,000 recoverable-costs ceiling that is not lowered under Art. 2(2) Scale of Recoverable Costs because the claimant, although an SME, has no operational activity or employees and a negative equity; the court notes Esko's undertaking to file a revocation counterclaim.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Security for costs under R. 158 RoP / Art. 69(4) UPCA
  • Art. 2(2) Scale of Recoverable Costs considered at the security stage; SME without operational activity
  • Provisional valuation of infringement action and announced revocation counterclaim
  • Access to justice (Art. 47 Charter) and the amount of security
• 2026-09-15
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: Brussels Local Division order under R. 296(3) RoP (judge-rapporteur Granata, delivered 3 Sep 2026; English version) in In(k)control BV v Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV (EP 3 841 735): after settlement talks failed, the infringement proceedings and the ancillary proceedings on the defendants' application for security, stayed since 29 May 2026, are resumed; the court holds that under R. 296(3) RoP time limits resume taking account of time already elapsed before the stay (not afresh in full), setting the statement-of-defence deadline at 2 Oct 2026 and security-application submissions at 7 and 10 Sep 2026.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Interpretation of R. 296(3) RoP: procedural periods resume after a stay, counting time already elapsed
  • Resumption of proceedings stayed under R. 295(d) RoP for settlement negotiations
  • Timetable for a pending application for security
• 2026-09-03
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: Brussels Local Division order of the judge-rapporteur (3 Sep 2026, R. 296.3 RoP) in In(k)control BV v Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV (EP 3 841 735): after a stay for settlement talks (29 May to 1 Sep 2026) failed, the court orders the resumption of the infringement action and of the side-proceeding on the defendants' request for security, holding (headnote) that R. 296.3 RoP suspends rather than restarts procedural periods, so time already elapsed before the stay counts; statement of defence and any counterclaim due 2 Oct 2026, security submissions 7 and 10 Sep 2026.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • R. 296.3 RoP: procedural periods are suspended, not restarted, by a stay (headnote)
  • R. 295(d) RoP stay for settlement negotiations
  • defendants' request for security (lodged 12 May 2026) still pending, timetable reset
• 2026-04-27
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: The President of the UPC Court of First Instance dismissed the defendants' application to change the language of the proceedings from Dutch to English under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP. The court found that the use of English in the relevant technology field does not outweigh the particular circumstances of the parties' domicile in a Dutch-speaking region and the significant size disparity between the small-enterprise claimant and the internationally resourced defendants.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Language of proceedings — Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP
  • Fairness assessment for language change request
  • SME protection in language selection
  • Admissibility of unsolicited further submissions under R. 323.2 RoP
  • Admissibility of language-change application before Statement of Defence