Esko-Graphics v In(k)control (CoA, UPC_CoA_73/2026, 8 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 8 October 2026 (UPC_CoA_73/2026), the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Esko-Software and Esko-Graphics against the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 27 April 2026 refusing to change the language of In(k)control’s infringement action before the Brussels Local Division (EP 3 841 735) from Dutch to English. The order also settles an admissibility point of general relevance: Rule 4.1 RoP does not require a qualified or advanced electronic signature.

Question

Is a statement of appeal admissible without a qualified electronic signature, and did the President exercise her discretion wrongly in keeping Dutch?

Decision

Rule 4.1 RoP requires electronic signature and filing but not a qualified or advanced signature, and neither the UPCA nor the eIDAS Regulation imposes one; a statement signed by all four counsel, one of them registered as representative in the case management system, is valid (paragraphs 26 to 29). On the merits, review is confined to non-exercise, misuse or excess of discretion (paragraphs 31 and 32). All parties are established in Dutch-speaking Belgium, and the appellants’ membership of a US group makes no difference (paragraph 34); In(k)control is a small enterprise facing much larger appellants (paragraphs 35 and 36); and the use of English in correspondence, before the EPO or in the exhibits does not warrant a change (paragraphs 37 to 40). No costs order was made (paragraph 43).

Key points for practice

• A simple electronic signature by counsel is sufficient for documents lodged with the UPC.
• Where all parties are based in the same language area, the parties’ relative size weighs in favour of keeping the language of the proceedings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 48 and 49(5)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 4.1, 8.1, 220.1(c), 224, 286, 320, 323 and 370.8(a)

Case law cited

NST v Qualcomm, 17 August 2026 (UPC_CoA_69/2026); Windhager v bellissa, 21 August 2026; SharkNinja v SEB, 22 May 2026; Ocado v Autostore, 8 February 2024; Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, 17 April 2024; Advanced Bionics v Med-El, Court of Appeal, 5 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_207/2024); Apple v Ona, 18 September 2024; Syntorr v Arthrex, 18 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_889/2025); UERAN Technology v Xiaomi, 19 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_903/2025); La Siddhi v Athena, 1 June 2026; all Court of Appeal

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.