Avago Technologies International Sales v Renault Deutschland (CFI, 3 July 2025)

Date	3 July 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_28457/2025 · ORD_29288/2025
Parties	Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Retail Group Deutschland 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 3 July 2025, the President of the Court of First Instance granted the application of Renault Retail Group Deutschland, Renault Deutschland and Renault S.A.S., defendants in the infringement action brought by Avago Technologies International Sales before the Munich Local Division on EP 3 726 780 (UPC_CFI_448/2025): the proceedings will continue in English, the language in which the patent was granted. The order follows the Court of Appeal’s framework and confirms that an early request by defendants, in a case whose technical material is largely in English, will ordinarily succeed.

Question

Should the language of the proceedings change from German to English, the language of grant, on grounds of fairness under Art. 49(5) UPCA?

Decision

Yes. Having consulted the panel (Rule 323.3), the President found that English is the common language of the technology at issue (exhibits and prior art in English), that the parties are of comparable size and international, and that the defendants’ group communicates in English. The claimant showed no concrete prejudice. Its argument based on enforcement in Germany concerns the outcome of the case and carries little weight. The language skills of representatives and judges are not decisive. Made at the outset, the application causes no delay. No translation or interpretation conditions were imposed.

Key points for practice

The defendant’s position carries particular weight in the fairness assessment. A claimant opposing the change must show concrete prejudice, rather than rely on future enforcement or its counsel’s language habits.
Practical point: an application to change the language filed within weeks of service, and grounded in the English character of the technical file, is likely to succeed without translation conditions.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 49(1) and (5), Art. 73(2)(a)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 220.1(c) 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

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

claimantRenault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantRenault Deutschland AG3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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 présidente du tribunal de première instance ordonne que la procédure se poursuive en anglais, langue de délivrance d'EP 3 726 780, sans condition de traduction, la demanderesse n'ayant établi aucun préjudice.
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 3 726 780 mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Avago Technologies International Sales v Renault Retail Group Deutschland (CFI, ORD_34625/2025, 5 September 2025) cites this decision
Avago Technologies International Sales v Renault Retail Group Deutschland (CFI, ORD_34671/2025, 5 September 2025) cites this decision

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 726 780`	Patent at issue according to the summary or official headnote	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: summary of the decision, 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.