Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Panasonic Holdings (CoA, 20 December 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 20 December 2023 (UPC_CoA_478/2023, App_594342/2023), the Court of Appeal, sitting with its three legally qualified judges only, rejected the application by OPPO and OROPE Germany to shorten Panasonic’s time limit for responding to their appeal against the refusal to change the language of the proceedings from German to English. Two points emerge: a procedural application raising no technical question may be decided without technically qualified judges, and a party that has used its own full time limit cannot insist that its opponent’s be cut to a few days.

Question

On 27 November 2023 the President of the Court of First Instance had refused a change to English, the language of EP 3 096 315. The appellants, who had lodged their statement of grounds of appeal late on 12 December 2023, asked for the 15-day response period to be cut to five working days, so that they could file their statement of defence and counterclaim in English on 22 December 2023.

Decision

Applying Art. 9(2) UPCA by analogy, a procedural application raising no technical question may be decided by three legally qualified judges. The application is admissible (paragraph 1). Rule 9.3(b) RoP allows a time limit to be shortened on a reasoned request (paragraph 4), but the appellants had used the whole of their own time limit. The respondent would have had only four working days and the court would have had to rule the same day without hearing the parties (paragraph 5). Proportionality, fairness and the right to a fair trial prevail, even though the statement of defence must now be filed in German at first instance (paragraph 6).

Key points for practice

• The Court of Appeal may rule without technically qualified judges on a procedural application raising no technical question.
• A request to expedite an appeal must allow the opponent reasonable time, particularly where the appellant has itself used its full time limit.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 8, 9, 41(3), 42 and 52(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3(b), 224.1(b), 224.2(b), 225(e) and 323, Preamble paragraphs 2 to 4

Case law cited

None.

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.