FAST IP v Skechers USA Deutschland (CFI, 29 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 29 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_743/2025, EP 4 003 084), the President of the Court of First Instance, after consulting the panel of the Munich Local Division, granted the application of the Skechers companies, the defendants, and changed the language of FAST IP’s infringement action from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The order applies the fairness test of Art. 49(5) UPCA, giving particular weight to the defendants’ position.

Question

Should the claimant’s chosen language, German, give way on grounds of fairness to English, the language of the patent?

Decision

Yes. The claimant’s choice may be restricted on grounds of fairness in the light of all relevant circumstances. The technical field and the cited prior art are largely American. Most defendants are subsidiaries established in countries where German is not an official language and work in English, which matters for organising a defence under strict time limits. Enforcement in Germany carries little weight, since it concerns the outcome of the case rather than the parties’ position during the proceedings, and the native language of the judges or representatives is irrelevant. The application, preceded by settlement talks and filed before the time limit for the Statement of Defence, causes no delay. As both sides have teams fluent in both languages, translation is limited to existing pleadings, the Statement of Claim already being available in English, with the judge-rapporteur free to decide later on the German annexes. The order is not conditional on further translation arrangements.

Key points for practice

• An application to change the language filed early, before the Statement of Defence, disposes of any argument based on delay.
• The importance of the German market for enforcement is not enough to keep German against defendants who operate in English.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

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

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.1(c) and 321 to 324

Case law cited

Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, 17 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_101/2024, paragraphs 22 to 25 and 34), Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_354/2024, paragraphs 26 and 27), Munich Local Division, 3 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_448/2025)

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.