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

Date	5 September 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_34566/2025 · ORD_34625/2025
Parties	Renault Nederland N.V., Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AG

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 an order of 5 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_629/2025, App_34566/2025), the President of the Court of First Instance, after consulting the panel of the Düsseldorf Local Division, changed the language of the proceedings from German to English, the language of grant of European patent EP 3 651 429, at the request of the Renault companies sued for infringement by Avago Technologies International Sales. As the claimant consented, the order expressly adopts the reasoning of the order of 3 July 2025 between the same claimant and three of the defendants.

Question

Should the language of the proceedings be changed to English under Art. 49(5) UPCA where the claimant does not object?

Decision

Yes. The claimant raised no circumstance distinguishing the case from the order of 3 July 2025. The reasoning adopted rests on the general use of English in the patent’s technical field, the international activity of parties working in English, the efficiency of an early request and the absence of any unreasonable disadvantage to the claimant. No translation arrangements were imposed, none having been requested. The order may be appealed within 15 days.

Key points for practice

Practical point: in a series of actions between the same parties, a first language order serves as a reference for the following ones unless the claimant points to a specific circumstance.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 49(1), (2) and (5) and Art. 73(2)(a)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 220.1(c) and 323
Case law cited: Avago Technologies International Sales v Renault, Munich Local Division, 3 July 2025

Related decisions

Avago Technologies International Sales v Renault Deutschland, 28 May 2026, later decision in the same infringement action.

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 Nederland N.V.2 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
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 langue de procédure est changée de l'allemand vers l'anglais, langue de délivrance du brevet, sans condition de traduction.
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 3 651 429 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Avago Technologies International Sales v Renault Deutschland (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2025, 28 May 2026) cited in this record
Avago Technologies International Sales v Renault Deutschland (CFI, 3 July 2025) cited in this record

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 3 651 429`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Avago Technologies International Sales v Hyundai Motor Deutschland (CF · Avago Technologies International Sales v Renault Deutschland (CFI, UPC	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.