UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 871/2026

Mar 10, 2026·EP3841735: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IMPROVING THE PRINT QUALITY

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Kristof Roox (Crowell); Jan-Diederik Lindemans (Crowell); Margot Horowitz (Crowell); Margaux Dejonghe (Crowell)
Respondents
Reps: Kristof Neefs (Inteo); Timothy van de Gehuchte (Portelio); Ellen Crabbe (Brantsandpatents)
Division
Brussels LD
Judges
Technology
Industrial Manufacturing · Printing Equipment · Telecommunications
Language
Dutch
First decided
Apr 27, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-04-27
    Infringement Action

    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.

    Legal issues:Language of proceedings — Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoPFairness assessment for language change requestSME protection in language selectionAdmissibility of unsolicited further submissions under R. 323.2 RoPAdmissibility of language-change application before Statement of Defence
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.issueOrder.order2026-06-01Not public
Order2026-06-01Public
Receipt2026-05-29Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-29Not public
Further pleadings2026-05-29Not public
Receipt2026-05-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-27Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-27Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-27Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-27Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-27Not public
Further pleadings2026-05-27Not public
action.communication.general2026-05-20Not public
Receipt2026-05-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-05-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-05-12Not public
Application document Defendant2026-05-12Not public
Receipt2026-04-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-27Not public
Document2026-04-27Not public
action.communication.general2026-04-27Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-27Not public
Order2026-04-27Public
Receipt2026-04-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-24Not public
Further pleadings2026-04-24Not public
Receipt2026-04-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-23Not public
Document2026-04-23Not public
Receipt2026-04-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Submission Claimant2026-04-20Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-16Not public
Order2026-04-16Not public
Receipt2026-04-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-16Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-16Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-03-17Not public
Receipt2026-03-10Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-10Not public
Fee2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Statement of claim2026-03-10Not public
Proof of payment2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Proof of entitlement to 50% reduction in court fees2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-10Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • All parties are domiciled in the Dutch-speaking Flemish Region of Belgium, giving the claimant a legitimate interest to file in Dutch

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 49(1) UPCA; UPC_CoA_207/2024; UPC_CoA_902/2025

  • The claimant is a small enterprise while the defendants are part of a financially strong international group, justifying denial of the language change

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 49(5) UPCA; Commission Recommendation 2003/361; UPC_CoA_101/2024; UPC_CoA_354/2024

  • The defendants failed to substantiate how proceeding in Dutch — an official language of the region where they are headquartered — puts them at a significant disadvantage

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 49(5) UPCA

  • The application to change language was admissible even before the Statement of Defence

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 323.3 RoP; UPC_CoA_207/2024
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • English is predominantly used in the print-technology field and therefore the proceedings should be conducted in English

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 49(5) UPCA — outweighed by domicile and size circumstances

  • The patent was granted in English, pre-litigation communications were in English, and the Statement of Claim itself is predominantly in English

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 49(5) UPCA — not sufficient to override claimant's choice

  • The defendants' reply dated 23 April 2026 should be considered on the merits

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 323.2 RoP — further submissions not foreseen by R. 323.2 and filed without prior authorisation cannot be considered; UPC_CFI_375/2023

  • R. 19.2(a) RoP renders the application inadmissible for lack of email address and designated service recipient

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 19.2(a) RoP — inapplicable to R. 323 applications; UPC_CFI_583/2024