Opens in a new tab

Hybridgenerator v HGSystem (CoA, 8 May 2025)

Date8 May 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionGeneric Order
Registry referenceORD_16127/2025
PartiesHybridgenerator ApS v. HGSystem Holding ApS, ***, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS

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

In Hybridgenerator’s appeal against an order of the Copenhagen Local Division declining to order HGSystem and other companies to pay the penalty payments set in an order of 4 September 2024 (EP 4 238 202, UPC_CoA_233/2025), the Court of Appeal made English the language of the appeal proceedings instead of Danish, with the parties’ agreement. It bore the cost of internal translations and asked the parties whether an oral hearing was needed. The order shows how flexibly Rule 322 can operate on appeal where the dispute is narrow.

Question

Can the language of appeal proceedings change from Danish to English, the language in which the patent was granted, on the judge rapporteur’s proposal, and on what terms as to translation?

Decision

Yes. Rule 322 allows the judge rapporteur, after consulting the panel, to propose a change of language, which takes effect if the parties and the panel agree (paragraph 7), Article 49(4) UPCA refers to grounds of convenience and fairness (paragraph 6). Since the appeal was limited in scope, English would shorten adjudication, and the parties, who understand English, suffered no disadvantage or cost (paragraph 8). No translations were required from the parties: the Court translates at its own cost for internal use (paragraph 9). The parties were to state by 16 May 2025 whether they wanted an oral hearing, possibly by videoconference (paragraph 10).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 49(4)
Rules of Procedure
Rule 322

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.

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 Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La langue de l'appel devient l'anglais avec l'accord des parties. La cour assure à ses frais les traductions internes et interroge les parties sur la tenue d'une audience.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

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.