SprintRay v *** (CFI, 26 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 August 2026, made in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_2020/2025 (revocation action) and UPC_CFI_2034/2025 (action for a declaration of non-infringement) brought by SprintRay against the proprietors of EP 3 762 212, the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division ruled on the application to change the language of proceedings, now filed in German. He again refused the switch to English and the auxiliary requests, adopting in full the reasons of the order of 17 August 2026, but allowed simultaneous interpretation at the defendants’ own cost and granted leave to appeal.

Question

Can an application to change the language, refiled in the language of proceedings after a first refusal, succeed, and must the Court tell the parties when the appeal period runs?

Decision

There was no reason to depart from the order of 17 August 2026, whose reasons were adopted, save for the request for simultaneous interpretation at the defendants’ own cost, now admissible and granted (paragraphs 12 and 13). The Court declined to rule on the start or expiry of the appeal period, which the Court of Appeal will assess itself (paragraph 14).

Key points for practice

• Before the Central Division, an application filed in a language other than the language of proceedings must be refiled in that language. Only the request for interpretation at the party’s own cost succeeded.
• Compliance with the appeal deadline remains the parties’ responsibility, without guidance from the first instance (paragraph 14).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9 and 109

Related decisions

• SprintRay v ***, 17 August 2026, panel order refusing the language change application filed in English.

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.