ASTES4 v BYSTRONIC LASER (CFI, 28 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 28 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_1146/2026), the President of the Court of First Instance, after consulting the panel of the Milan Local Division (Rule 323.3 RoP), grants the application of the defendants Bystronic Laser, Bystronic Austria, Bystronic Italia and Isochronic to change the language of ASTES4’s action for infringement of EP 2 164 678 from Italian to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The order holds that a language change application may be filed before the statement of defence, and gives weight to the need for coordination between co-defendants based in several countries.

Question

Is an application to change the language of the proceedings filed before the statement of defence admissible and, if so, does the balance of interests justify a change to English?

Decision

Yes on both counts. Art. 49(5) UPCA, which prevails, does not require the application to be included in the statement of defence: Rule 323.3 RoP does not bar an earlier application, which takes effect sooner (paragraphs 9 and 10). The change cannot be granted for mere convenience (paragraph 17). The parties, members of international groups, are in a comparable position and are all able to litigate in English (paragraphs 18 to 21), the outcome of the pending preliminary objection is irrelevant (paragraph 22). English is the language of the technical field, of a significant share of the exhibits and of the patent (paragraph 23). Where the balance is even, the defendants’ position is decisive. The parties’ domicile and the need for rapid communication between co-defendants based in Switzerland, Austria and Italy weigh in favour of English (paragraphs 24 to 26). No translation arrangements are imposed, as none were requested (paragraph 27).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a defendant may apply for a change of language as soon as it receives the statement of claim, without waiting for the statement of defence, which limits the impact of the change on the proceedings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 41(3), 49(1), (2) and (5), 52(1) and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.1(c) and 321 to 324

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 17 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_101/2024), Court of Appeal, 5 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_207/2024), Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_354/2024), Court of First Instance, 3 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_448/2025), UERAN v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal, 19 December 2025, Pinterest Germany v Nagravision, 20 January 2026, Esko-Software v In(k)control, 27 April 2026

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.