Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications v Innovative Sonic (CFI, 18 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 18 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_460/2025, ACT_24699/2025, APP_33670/2025), the President of the Court of First Instance, after consulting the panel of the Munich Local Division, granted the request of the nine Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications group defendants (including Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications and OnePlus Technology) and replaced German with English, the language in which EP 2 765 731 was granted, in Innovative Sonic’s infringement action. The order applies the Court of Appeal’s fairness test and gives decisive weight to the common working language of defendants based in four countries.

Question

Is a change to the language of the patent justified where only three of the defendants are German, and may the claimant have the oral hearings held in German?

Decision

The President assessed fairness in the light of all relevant circumstances, with particular regard to the defendant’s position, following Court of Appeal case law. Absent specific circumstances, the language of the patent is not unfair to the claimant. English is the language commonly used in the mobile communications technology at issue. The defendants, German, Italian, Dutch and Chinese, all work in English internally, which outweighs their size. The judges work in English, translation and interpretation address any risk of lost nuance and the change will not delay the proceedings. Parallel national proceedings and the representatives’ language skills carry little weight. The request for German oral hearings was dismissed as a matter for the judge rapporteur, and the order is not conditional on any translation arrangements.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: against a group of defendants spread over several countries and working in English, the claimant’s choice of German is hard to defend under Art. 49(5) UPCA, and the language of the hearings is then a matter to raise with the judge rapporteur.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 49(1), (2) and (5) and Art. 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220 and 323

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 17 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_101/2024), Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_354/2024), Advanced Bionics v MED-EL, Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_207/2024)

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.