Google Commerce v Ona Patents (CoA, 18 September 2024)

Date	18 September 2024
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Appeal RoP220.1
Registry reference	APL_38206/2024 · ORD_48660/2024
Parties	Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v. Ona Patents SL

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 an order of 18 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_349/2024, APL_38206/2024), the second panel of the Court of Appeal (R. Kalden, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur, I. Simonsson, P. Rombach) set aside the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2024 and made English the language of the proceedings in the action brought in German by Ona Patents SL against Google Commerce Limited and Google Ireland Limited before the Düsseldorf Local Division for infringement of EP 2 263 098 (UPC_CFI_100/2024). The order adds to the criteria laid down on 17 April 2024 for a change of language under Art. 49(5) UPCA.

Question

Does fairness require a switch to the language of the patent where the claimant chose German for reasons of convenience?

Decision

Art. 49(5) refers to fairness only, not convenience (paragraphs 17 and 18). The patent, the technology and most of the evidence are in English, the working language of the Google group, whose experts and strategy sit in the United States (paragraphs 23 to 26). Google is clearly disadvantaged by working in German, whereas Ona needs no translations: its choice is one of convenience, which is irrelevant (paragraphs 28 and 29). Parallel national proceedings in Germany carry little weight, and the size of the parties is not decisive (paragraphs 30 and 31). The language of the patent remains an important factor, including for a patent acquired for worldwide enforcement (paragraph 36).

Key points for practice

Practical point: beyond the criteria of 17 April 2024, the parties’ internal working language, internal coordination and technical support are relevant, parallel national proceedings carry little weight.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 49(4) and (5)
Rules of Procedure: Rule 323
Case law cited: Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 17 April 2024, Court of Appeal, 5 September 2024, UPC_CoA_207/2024, Court of First Instance, 30 May 2024, UPC_CFI_26/2024

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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.

First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_100/2024, UPC_CFI_26/2024

Parties

defendantOna Patents SL16 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantGoogle Commerce Limited5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantGoogle Ireland Limited6 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

15 June 2025 Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 15 June 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_26/2024
La division locale de Düsseldorf rejette la demande de garantie pour frais de 400 000 euros visant le demandeur américain, faute de preuve d’une exécution excessivement difficile aux États-Unis ou d’un risque d’insolvabilité.
26 September 2025 Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 26 September 2025) Withdrawal (RoP265) · UPC_CFI_26/2024
La division autorise le désistement consenti de l'action en contrefaçon, déclare la procédure close, laisse à chaque partie ses frais et constate que la décision du 30 juillet 2025 devient sans effet.
13 October 2025 Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 13 October 2025) Application Rop 333 · UPC_CFI_100/2024
La demande de réexamen est rejetée : la citation n'exprimait qu'une intention, le calendrier relève du pouvoir discrétionnaire du président et les arguments d'une procédure parallèle close sont sans pertinence.
14 October 2025 Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 14 October 2025) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_100/2024
La clarification des demandes de contrefaçon directe est admise, mais les requêtes subsidiaires nouvelles fondées sur la contrefaçon indirecte sont irrecevables et la procédure écrite est close.
15 January 2026 Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 15 January 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_100/2024
La division locale de Düsseldorf rejette l'action en contrefaçon d'Ona Patents contre Google, les produits Pixel ne reproduisant pas la revendication de produit, et rejette la demande reconventionnelle en nullité, EP 2 263 098 étant jugé valable.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Appeal RoP220.1
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La cour d'appel annule le refus du président du tribunal de première instance et fixe l'anglais, langue du brevet, comme langue de la procédure, le choix de l'allemand par le demandeur relevant de la seule commodité.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_100/2024, UPC_CFI_26/2024).
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 263 098 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CoA, 17 April 2024) cited in this record

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 263 098` Positioning of mobile objects based on mutually transmitted signals recorded proprietor: Ekahau Oy	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 21 other decision(s): Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 15 January 2026) · Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 14 October 2025) · Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 13 October 2025) · Ona Patents v Apple (CFI, 17 September 2025) · Ona Patents v Apple (CFI, 11 September 2025) · Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 10 September 2025) · Ona Patents v Apple (CFI, 5 September 2025) · Ona Patents v Google Commerce (CFI, 1 August 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) 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.