Opens in a new tab

BF exaQC v NVIDIA (CFI, 16 January 2025)

Date16 January 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_64878/2024 · ORD_65820/2024
PartiesNVIDIA 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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 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

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 743 812Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 2 628 080Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
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.