SprintRay v *** (CFI, 20 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 17 August 2026, made in proceedings UPC_CFI_2020/2025 (revocation action) and UPC_CFI_2034/2025 (action for a declaration of non-infringement) brought by SprintRay against the two Liechtenstein-resident proprietors of EP 3 762 212, the panel of the Paris Central Division refused to switch from German to English. It held that no change of language is possible before the Central Division, where the language of grant applies, and that the application filed in English was inadmissible.

Question

Can the language of proceedings before the Central Division, the language of grant, be changed at a party’s request, under Rule 9.1 RoP or by analogy with Art. 49(5) UPCA?

Decision

Art. 49(6) UPCA makes the language of grant the binding language of proceedings, applied of the Court’s own motion. An application and auxiliary requests drafted in English are inadmissible (paragraphs 27 and 28). Neither the UPCA nor the Rules provide for a change of language before the Central Division. Rule 9.1 RoP, which serves procedural efficiency, cannot fill that silence, and analogy with Art. 49(5) UPCA and Rules 321 et seq. RoP is excluded, the absence of a mechanism being a deliberate choice, confirmed by Rule 39 RoP (paragraphs 29 to 33). There is no balancing of the parties’ interests (paragraphs 34 and 35). Written pleadings and hearings in English were refused (paragraphs 36 and 37). The request for interpreters at the defendants’ own cost failed only because it was made in English (paragraph 38). Leave to appeal was granted under Rule 220.2 RoP (paragraph 39).

Key points for practice

• Before the Central Division, the language of grant applies with no means of correction. Prior art in English is admitted only if the Court dispenses with translation under Art. 51(1) UPCA (paragraph 36).
• Every application must be drafted in the language of proceedings, failing which it is inadmissible (paragraph 27).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 49(3) to (6) and 51(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.1, 39, 46.6, 102.1, 105.3, 109, 220.2, 321 et seq. and 323

European Patent Convention

Rule 3(1) of the Implementing Regulations (relied on by the defendants)

Related decisions

• SprintRay, 26 August 2026, order on the application refiled in German, allowing interpretation at the defendants’ own cost.

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.