Opens in a new tab

Easee v Visibly (CFI, 24 October 2024)

Date24 October 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionHamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_55164/2024 · ORD_55580/2024
PartiesEasee 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 918 974Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.