2026-07-28 - LD Milan - ASTES4 v. BYSTRONIC LASER et al. - UPC-CFI-0001146/2026

- Considering that Art. 49 (5) does not require the application for a language change to be included in the Statement of Defence, R. 323.3 must accordingly be interpreted in such a manner that it does not preclude the lodging of the application beforehand. This interpretation ensures that the requested change, should it be granted, is implemented as early as possible to limit its impact on the course of the proceedings. - In the event where the outcome of the balancing of interests is equal, the position of the Defendant(s) prevails in the overall assessment. - The domiciliation of parties in countries where the language of the proceedings initially chosen is or is not an official language is important to decide on an application pursuant to R. 323 RoP. However, consideration must also be given to the need for coordination and rapid communication among all Defendants.

The President of the Court of First Instance granted an application under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings before the Milan Local Division from Italian to English, the language in which the patent was granted. On admissibility, the order holds that because Art. 49(5) UPCA prevails in the event of a conflict with the corresponding Rules and does not require the application to be included in the Statement of Defence, R. 323.3 RoP must be read so as not to preclude lodging it beforehand [9]-[10]. On the merits, all parties were found to be internationally operating groups in a comparable multilingual, logistical and financial situation and therefore equally capable of litigating in English, so the balancing of interests came out equal and, under the Court of Appeal's framework, the Defendants' position became decisive [21], [24]. Domiciliation of the parties in States where the initially chosen language is an official language remains an important factor, but it must be weighed against the need of several defendants to coordinate and communicate rapidly within the Court's strict time limits [25]-[26]. The outcome of a pending preliminary objection cannot be anticipated and is therefore of no relevance to the language application [22].