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

Dhenne Avocats · 22 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 21 October 2026 (UPC_CoA_149/2026 and UPC_CoA_150/2026), issued in German, the standing judge of the UPC Court of Appeal held inadmissible the appeals brought by the proprietors of EP 3 762 212, whose names are not displayed on the register, against the order of 26 August 2026 by which the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris seat), in the revocation and non-infringement actions brought by SprintRay Inc., refused to change the language of proceedings from German to English and granted only simultaneous interpretation at their own cost.

Question

Can a procedural order made by the presiding judge of the Central Division sitting alone on a request to change the language of proceedings be appealed directly, where that judge has granted leave to appeal, without prior review by the panel?

Decision

The appeals were held inadmissible (« Danach sind die Berufungen unzulässig », para. 20). The judge recalled that a procedural order of the judge-rapporteur or presiding judge can in principle be appealed only after review by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP, discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP being available only where the panel has refused leave (para. 12, citing Netgear v Huawei, UPC_CoA_486/2023). The refusal of the change of language is such an order: the request is a procedural application rather than a claim, unlike the claim at issue in Microsoft v Suinno (UPC_CoA_454/2024) on Rule 334(h) RoP, and the Court noted that the Rules provide for no change of language before the Central Division, Article 49(6) UPCA making the language of the patent the language of proceedings (paras. 13 to 15). The same applies to the auxiliary requests under Rules 7.1 and 105.3 RoP (para. 16). The proviso « sofern nichts anderes bestimmt ist » in Netgear v Huawei refers to provisions of the Rules, not to an individual order (paras. 17 and 18), and the panel’s earlier order did not delegate any power to the judge-rapporteur, since delegation to a single judge requires the parties’ consent, which was lacking (para. 19).

Key points for practice

• Route of appeal: leave to appeal granted by the judge-rapporteur or presiding judge sitting alone does not dispense with panel review under Rule 333.1 RoP, absent a delegation of powers agreed by the parties (paras. 12 and 17 to 19).
• Language before the Central Division: a request to change the language of proceedings is a procedural application, not a claim, and the Court noted that the Rules provide for no such change before the Central Division, Article 49(6) UPCA fixing the language of the patent (para. 14).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 7.1, 9, 105.3, 220.2, 220.3, 333.1 and 334(h) RoP

UPC Agreement

Articles 8(7), 49(5) and 49(6) UPCA

Related decisions

• SprintRay v name not displayed, 26 August 2026 (UPC_CFI_2020/2025), order of the presiding judge of the Central Division against which the appeals were held inadmissible.
• SprintRay v name not displayed, 26 August 2026 (UPC_CFI_2034/2025), the same order, published in the action for a declaration of non-infringement.
• SprintRay v name not displayed, 20 August 2026, Central Division panel order rejecting the first request for a change of language as inadmissible, referred to by the Court of Appeal.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 22 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.