Opens in a new tab

Esko-Graphics Imaging v XSYS Germany (CFI, 21 January 2025)

Date21 January 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_65942/2024 · ORD_68820/2024
PartiesXSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V.

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 order of 15 January 2025, the President of the Court of First Instance, Florence Butin, granted the application by the defendants XSYS Germany, XSYS Prepress and XSYS Italia to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which EP 3 742 231 was granted, in the infringement action brought by Esko-Graphics Imaging before the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_483/2024). The claimant expressly agreed and accepted that no translation of pleadings already filed would be required. The order shows how swiftly an agreed change of language is handled.

Question

May the language of proceedings be changed to the language of grant where the claimant consents?

Decision

After consulting the panel (Rule 323.3 RoP), the President granted the application in view of the claimant’s express agreement: the proceedings continue in English. The change is not made conditional on any translation or interpretation arrangements, as the parties agreed that no translations were needed under Rule 324 RoP. The defendants are to file their statement of defence within the period laid down in the Rules of Procedure. The order may be appealed within fifteen days of its notification to the applicants.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 73(2)(a)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 220, 323 and 324

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

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)
Avec l'accord exprès de la demanderesse, la langue de la procédure passe de l'allemand à l'anglais, langue de délivrance, 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

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 742 231Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Esko-Graphics Imaging v XSYS Germany (CFI, 16 June 2025) · XSYS Italia v Esko-Graphics Imaging (CoA, 2 June 2025) · Esko-Graphics Imaging v XSYS Germany (CFI, 28 February 2025) · XSYS Prepress v Esko-Graphics Imaging (CFI, 10 February 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.