Apple Retail Deutschland v Ona Patents (CoA, 11 July 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 11 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_354/2024), given in German, the Court of Appeal rejected Apple’s request to expedite its appeal against the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2024 refusing to change the language of proceedings from German to English, in the action for infringement of EP 2 263 098 brought by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Apple had asked for Ona’s time to respond to expire on 5 July 2024, although the appeal was served on Ona only on 9 July. The order confirms that the 15-day response period will be shortened only where a specific interest is shown, weighed against the fairness of the proceedings.

Question

Should the respondent’s 15-day period to respond to an appeal against an order on the language of proceedings be shortened under Rule 9.3(b) at the appellant’s request?

Decision

As the requested date preceded service, the Court read the request as leaving Ona only four days (paragraph 4). Apple’s reasons did not outweigh the respondent’s interest in proper proceedings (paragraph 5). It made no difference that Ona might have known Apple’s arguments from its submission of 14 June 2024: Rule 323 provides for no reply to comments under Rule 323.2, and the President had not taken it into account (paragraph 6). Apple showed no specific interest in a response by any particular date and had itself taken considerably longer to file its grounds of appeal than the period it wished to leave Ona (paragraphs 7 and 8). Ona did not need to be heard (paragraph 2).

Key points for practice

• An appellant seeking to shorten the response period must show a specific interest. The time it took over its own grounds is part of the balance.
• Practical point: a submission not provided for by Rule 323 cannot be relied on to argue that the other side already knows the grounds of appeal.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3(b), 224.2(b), 225(e), 235.2 and 323

Case law cited

No UPC decision is cited.

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.