Advanced Bionics v MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. (CoA, ORD_42779/2024, 5 September 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 5 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_207/2024, APL_24598/2024), the Court of Appeal dismissed Advanced Bionics’ appeal against the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2024, which had refused to replace German with English, the language of EP 4 074 373, in the infringement action brought by MED-EL before the Mannheim Local Division. The fact that the parties are based in countries where the claimant’s chosen language is an official language is an important factor (paragraph 12). The order adds that a request to change the language may be made before the statement of defence (paragraph 20).

Question

Did the President misapply Art. 49(5) UPCA by refusing a change to English, when the language of the patent and of the parallel revocation action before the Central Division was English?

Decision

No. The President has a discretion based on fairness and all relevant circumstances, in particular the defendant’s position (paragraph 9), applying the principles set out in Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (paragraph 11). The defendants are based in German- or French-speaking countries (paragraph 12), Advanced Bionics is a multinational group with a large patent department, whereas MED-EL, much smaller, has no legal department (paragraph 13). A change would require translations or bilingual proceedings (paragraph 14). The use of English in the technical field does not outweigh where the parties are established (paragraph 16), and MED-EL’s earlier language choices do not by themselves require a change (paragraph 17). The admissibility objection did not need deciding. Rule 323.3 RoP does not prevent the request being made before the statement of defence, and early filing is preferable (paragraphs 19 and 20).

Key points for practice

• The relative size of the parties and whether they have in-house legal resources weigh in the balance under Art. 49(5) UPCA.
• Practical point: defendants should apply for a change of language at the outset, without waiting for the statement of defence.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 49(5)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 323 and 323.3

Case law cited

Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 17 April 2024.

Related decisions

• Advanced Bionics, 15 April 2024, President’s order refusing the change of language.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.