Hybridgenerator v HGSystem (CoA, 8 May 2025)
| Date | 8 May 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Generic Order |
| Registry reference | ORD_16127/2025 |
| Parties | Hybridgenerator 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.
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
- On appeal, a change of language may be initiated by the judge rapporteur and imposes no translation costs on the parties where the Court itself provides internal translations.
- Practical point: for an appeal of limited scope, the Court of Appeal considers deciding on the written pleadings and asks the parties whether a hearing is needed.
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
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
Parties
- claimantHybridgenerator ApS11 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantInfotech Concept ApS9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantInfotech Holding ApS4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHGSystem ApS9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHGSystem Holding ApS, ***5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 4 238 202mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Hybridgenerator v HGSystem (CFI, 19 December 2024) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 4 238 202 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Hybridgenerator v HGSystem (CFI, 29 May 2026) · Hybridgenerator v HGSystem ApS etc (CFI, 5 December 2025) · Hybridgenerator v Infotech Concept (CoA, 4 June 2025) · Hybridgenerator v HGSystem (CFI, 3 March 2025) · Hybridgenerator v HGSystem (CFI, 19 December 2024) · Hybridgenerator v HGSystem (CoA, UPC_CoA_172/2026, 29 October 2026) · Hybridgenerator v HGSystem (CoA, UPC_CoA_171/2026, 29 October 2026) · Hybridgenerator v HGSystem (CoA, UPC_CoA_170/2026, 29 October 2026) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.