UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 871/2026

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

Follow
Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Brussels LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Telecommunications
Language
Dutch
First decided
Apr 27, 2026
Last decision
Sep 16, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Brussels LDLockedLocked
Judge Samuel GranataLockedLocked
Judge Marije KnijffLockedLocked
Judge Daniel VossLockedLocked

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

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CoA 73/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Brussels LD·2026

Decisions
  • 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
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-09-16Not public
Receipt2026-09-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-16Not public
Document2026-09-16Not public
Publication of order2026-09-16Not public
Publication of order2026-09-16Not public
Order2026-09-16Not public
Order2026-09-16Public
Order2026-09-16Not public
Order2026-09-16Public
Receipt2026-09-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-15Not public
Document2026-09-15Not public
Receipt2026-09-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-15Not public
Document2026-09-15Not public
Communication2026-09-15Not public
Receipt2026-09-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-15Not public
Application document Claimant2026-09-15Not public
Publication of order2026-09-15Not public
Order2026-09-15Not public
Order2026-09-15Public
Receipt2026-09-10Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-10Not public
Further pleadings2026-09-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-09-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-09-10Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-09-10Not public
Receipt2026-09-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-07Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-09-07Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-09-07Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-09-07Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-09-07Not public
Further pleadings2026-09-07Not public
Publication of order2026-09-03Not public
Order2026-09-03Not public
Order2026-09-03Public
Written procedure reopened2026-09-02Not public
Interim procedure opened2026-09-02Not public
Receipt2026-09-01Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-01Not public
Document2026-09-01Not public
Communication2026-09-01Not public
Receipt2026-08-31Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-31Not public
Document2026-08-31Not public
Receipt2026-08-31Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-31Not public
Document2026-08-31Not public
Communication2026-08-26Not public
Other Documents2026-08-26Not public
Other Documents2026-08-26Not public
Other Documents2026-08-26Not public
Publication2026-06-05Not public
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
Communication2026-05-20Not 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
Communication2026-04-27Not public
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
Order2026-04-16Not public
Order2026-04-16Not public
Receipt2026-04-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-16Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-16Not public
Publication2026-03-17Not 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