Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 30 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 30 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_26/2024, ACT_3932/2024), the President of the Court of First Instance, Florence Butin, at the request of Samsung Electronics GmbH and three other Samsung group companies, defendants in Headwater Research LLC’s infringement action on EP 3 110 069 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, ordered a change of the language of the proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted, despite the claimant’s objection. The order applies the Court of Appeal’s test giving priority to the defendant’s position.

Question

Does a change to the language of the patent (Art. 49(5) UPCA) require the defendant to suffer a disproportionate disadvantage, and which factors enter the balance?

Decision

Admissibility was not in dispute. The President held that for the balancing, it is enough that the initial language is significantly detrimental to the applicant for the change, without any need for a disproportionate disadvantage. Following the Court of Appeal’s order of 17 April 2024, she recalled that the language of the patent is, as a rule, not unfair to the claimant, and that the defendant’s position prevails where the parties are in a comparable situation, since the defendant faces strict time limits while the claimant chooses the forum and timing. German was more detrimental to Samsung, which could not rely on that language for its defence and works in English. As both parties use English, the change caused no inconvenience to Headwater. The parallel Munich proceedings were irrelevant, as were the nationality and native language of the judges. The change was ordered without translation or interpretation conditions.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a claimant opposing a change to the language of the patent must point to concrete circumstances of its own, parallel proceedings or the composition of the panel are not enough.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 49(1), (2) and (5) and 73(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220, 323 and 324

Case law cited

Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 17 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_101/2024), Aarke v SodaStream Industries, Düsseldorf Local Division, 16 January 2024 (UPC_CFI_373/2023), The Hague Local Division, 18 October 2023, UPC_CFI_225/2023, Mannheim Local Division, 15 April 2024, UPC_CFI_410/2023

Related decisions

• Headwater Research v Samsung Electronics, 12 June 2024, order granting without objection a change to English in the parallel action before the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_54/2024).

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.