UERAN Technology v Xiaomi — Court of Appeal, 19 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_902/2025)
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against an order of the President of the Court of First Instance granting a change of the language of proceedings from German to English pursuant to Art. 49.5 UPCA. The decision provides further clarification on the scope of the President’s discretionary powers and confirms that applications to change the language of proceedings are to be assessed on the basis of fairness, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the specific case, with particular emphasis on the position of the defendant.
UERAN Technology had brought infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division. Upon application by the defendants, the President of the Court of First Instance ordered a change of the language of proceedings from German to English. UERAN Technology appealed that order, arguing that the President had exercised her discretion in a legally erroneous manner and had relied merely on considerations of convenience for the defendants.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the order solely from the perspective of whether the President had correctly applied the criteria under Art. 49.5 UPCA.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that Art. 49.5 UPCA does not require a finding that the defendant would be unable to defend itself in the language chosen by the claimant. Rather, the provision requires a balancing of interests based on fairness, taking into account all circumstances relevant to the parties themselves.
Relevant factors may include:
If the balancing of interests does not clearly favor either party, the position of the defendant is decisive.
The Court rejected the argument that proceedings before a German Local Division should, as a rule, be conducted in German. The location of the division and the language skills of the judges or representatives are not decisive factors, as they are not circumstances related to the parties themselves.
Nor can reliance be placed on the availability of machine translation. The Court reiterated that parties must be able to fully understand both their own submissions and those of the opposing party, and that machine translation cannot be regarded as an adequate substitute, particularly in view of the UPC’s strict procedural deadlines.
The Court of Appeal emphasized that different outcomes in earlier cases do not reflect inconsistencies in the case law, but rather fact-specific applications of the same principles. The President did not depart from established jurisprudence but correctly assessed the particular constellation of parties in this case, where only one of nine defendants was domiciled in Germany and English was the common working language within the defendant group.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
