Name not displayed (GDPR) v SprintRay (CoA, UPC_CoA_149/2026, 21 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 30 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

This entry corresponds to appeal UPC_CoA_149/2026, decided by the order of 21 October 2026 of the standing judge of the Court of Appeal, given in German on the admissibility of the appeals. The Court holds the appeals inadmissible: the contested act is a procedural order of the judge-rapporteur refusing a change in the language of the proceedings before the central division, and leave to appeal granted at first instance does not open a direct appeal. The order carries two headnotes, on the nature of a request to change the language and on Article 49(6) of the Agreement.

Facts and procedure

The appellants, defendants at first instance, had asked for the language of the proceedings to be changed. By order of 17 August 2026 the panel indicated that the request, filed in English, had to be filed again in German to be admissible. The judge-rapporteur then refused the change and rejected two auxiliary requests, while allowing simultaneous interpretation at the applicants’ own cost and adopting in full the reasoning of the order of 17 August 2026. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was lodged on 10 September 2026.

The applicable law

The order applies Rule 220.2 of the Rules of Procedure on appeals against procedural orders, Article 49(6) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, which makes the language of the patent the language of the proceedings before the central division, and Rules 44(c), 63(c), 345.4(a) and 345.6, read with Article 8(7) of the Agreement, on sitting as a single judge.

Question

May an appeal be brought directly against the order by which the judge-rapporteur refuses to change the language of the proceedings, where leave to appeal was granted at first instance?

Decision

No. The contested act is a procedural order of the judge-rapporteur, against which no direct appeal lies. That the order adopted the reasoning of the panel’s order of 17 August 2026 changes nothing: the indication that the request had to be filed again in German cannot be read as an advance delegation to the judge-rapporteur of the power to decide alone. Delegation of single-judge functions requires, in proceedings of this kind, the parties’ consent, which was missing here. The appeals are therefore inadmissible. The Court adds that a request to change the language before the central division is not a claim but a procedural request, an exceptional one at that, so that rejecting it is not a summary dismissal of a claim without prospect of success within the meaning of Rule 334(h), unlike Microsoft v Suinno, and that the Rules of Procedure provide for no change in the language of the proceedings before the central division, Article 49(6) of the Agreement imposing the language of the patent without exception.

Key points for practice

• Before the central division the language of the proceedings is that of the patent, without exception, and the Rules of Procedure organise no change of language.
• Leave to appeal granted at first instance does not make admissible an appeal directed against an order of the judge-rapporteur alone.
• In proceedings of this kind the judge-rapporteur may sit alone only with the parties’ consent.
• Refusing a request to change the language is not a summary dismissal of a claim within the meaning of Rule 334(h).

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement

Articles 8(7) and 49(6)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 44(c), 63(c), 220.2, 334(h), 345.4(a) and 345.6

Related decisions

• SprintRay (CoA, 21 October 2026), same order, entry for the parallel appeal.

Only the official text is authentic.