Easee v Visibly (CFI, 24 October 2024)
| Date | 24 October 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_55164/2024 · ORD_55580/2024 |
| Parties | Easee Holding B.V., Yves Prevoo, Easee B.V. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 22 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_525/2024, App_55164/2024), the President of the Court of First Instance (F. Butin), in Visibly’s infringement action on EP 3 918 974 before the Hamburg Local Division against Easee B.V., Easee Holding B.V. and Yves Prevoo, changed the language of the proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted, and ordered Visibly to translate the Statement of Claim and four exhibits at its own expense. Visibly’s consent thus did not relieve it of the cost of translations.
Question
Where the claimant agrees to a change to the language of the patent, may it be ordered to translate documents already filed at its own expense?
Decision
As Visibly expressly agreed to the change, English becomes the language of the proceedings from the date of the order (Art. 49(3) UPCA, Rule 323 RoP). On translations (Rule 324 RoP), the President takes into account the speedy handling of the case, the benefit of basing the discussion on English submissions from the party that drafted them, and the fact that the claimant could reasonably expect such a request given the nationality and domicile of the parties. The change comes early and the volume to translate is limited: a 72-page Statement of Claim and four exhibits. Fairness and convenience justify ordering Visibly to translate the Statement of Claim and Exhibits PS1, PS2, PS4 and PS5 within ten days, at its own expense.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a claimant that chooses a language other than that of the patent against foreign defendants should anticipate the cost of retroactive translations if the case moves to the language of grant, even with its consent.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts. 49(3) and 73(2)(a)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 220, 323 and 324
- 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.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantEasee Holding B.V.5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantEasee B.V.5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantYves Prevoo3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La langue de procédure passe à l'anglais, langue du brevet, avec l'accord de la demanderesse, qui doit traduire à ses frais sous dix jours le mémoire en demande et quatre annexes.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 918 974mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 918 974 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): Visibly v Easee (CoA, 23 July 2025) · Easee v Visibly (CoA, 1 July 2025) · Easee v Visibly (CoA, 26 June 2025) · Visibly v Easee (CFI, 26 June 2025) · Visibly v Easee (CFI, 30 May 2025) · Yves Prevoo v Visibly (CFI, 18 December 2024) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.