BF exaQC v NVIDIA (CFI, 16 January 2025)
| Date | 16 January 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_64878/2024 · ORD_65820/2024 |
| Parties | NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA GmbH |
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
By order of 16 January 2025, the President of the Court of First Instance, Florence Butin, dismissed the application by NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language of grant, in the infringement action brought by BF exaQC and ParTec before the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_627/2024, EP 3 743 812 and EP 2 628 080). The order weighs the parties’ positions and, in particular, access to justice for a medium-sized company facing a very large group.
Question
Is a change of the language of proceedings to the language of grant justified on grounds of fairness where English is customary in the technical field but most parties are established in Germany?
Decision
English is admittedly the language commonly used in the technical field. However, three of the four companies, including both claimants, are established in Germany, which gave the claimants legitimate grounds to sue in German, and nothing showed that they use English internally. NVIDIA Corporation has far greater means than ParTec, allowing it to proceed in a foreign language without significant inconvenience, and it had not shown any material impairment of its defence. Fair access to justice for medium-sized enterprises is an important objective of the UPCA. The claimants’ US action against Microsoft carried little weight, in line with Court of Appeal guidance. The order may be appealed within fifteen days.
Key points for practice
- The parties’ relative size and resources weigh in the fairness assessment under Art. 49(5) UPCA, in favour of a medium-sized claimant suing in the language of its seat.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts 49(1), 49(5) and 73(2)(a)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 220 and 323
- Case law cited
- Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 17 April 2024, Court of Appeal, 5 September 2024, UPC_CoA_207/2024, Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024, UPC_CoA_354/2024
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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).
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
- claimantNVIDIA Corporation4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantNVIDIA GmbH4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande de NVIDIA de passer à l'anglais est rejetée : les demanderesses, établies en Allemagne, pouvaient légitimement agir en allemand et NVIDIA n'établit aucune atteinte sensible à sa défense.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 743 812mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 2 628 080mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics (CoA, 17 April 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 743 812 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): BF exaQC v Google (CFI, 19 October 2026) · ParTec v Lenovo Global Technology Germany (CFI, 30 June 2026) · BFexaQC v NVIDIA (CFI, UPC_CFI_180/2025, 11 March 2026) · BF exaQC v NVIDIA (CoA, 29 September 2026) · NVIDIA v BF exaQC (CoA, 29 September 2026) · NVIDIA v BF exaQC (CoA, 28 September 2026) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
EP 2 628 080 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) | 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.