UPC_CoA_164/2026; UPC_CoA_165/2026 – Hurtel v Philips / Belkin
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Sector
- Electronics/SEP
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Wrong language? Facts 1. Hurtel requested access to the pleadings and evidence relating to the appeal proceedings between Philips and Belkin. 2. Hurtel submitted the request in English. Decision of the JR As the language of the “Hauptverfahrens” (main proceedings) is in German, Hurtel gets the opportunity to file their request in German until 9 October 2026. Comment 1. The JR does not quote any articles of the UPCA, the Statute or the Rules of Procedure on which this decision is based. The term “Hauptverfahren” nor an English or French translation can be found in R. 262 RoP, so this is therefore a qualification by the JR. 2. While I admit that you can think of the proceedings for which access was asked as the “main proceedings”, I disagree with the implication of the use of that term. It suggests that the request for access is part of the overall proceedings between Philips and Belkin and that therefore German should be used for the request. 3. In my opinion, the proceedings ex R. 262 RoP (request for access to the Regulation) are separate proceedings. These are ‘proceedings’ between the applicant and the Registry (with comments by the parties Philips and Belkin), or, if you prefer, ‘proceedings’ between Hurtel on the one hand (the JR calls it “Antragstellerin” and Philips and Belkin (“Antragsgegner(in)”) on the other hand. 4. The case also gets a different number and a fee must be paid. 5. The problem then becomes what language the Polish applicant should use to obtain access to the file with respect to Court of Appeal proceedings. The JR solves this by referring to the Philips v Belkin proceedings. Would it not be the most practical solution for the applicant to be able to use one of the UPCA languages (in practice, English)? 6. My conclusion is that the JR could have made a more user-friendly decision, bearing in mind that English is the language which is accessible for all users of the UPC. 7. Finally: Is this work for the Court of Appeal? I suggest a new Rule that these requests are dealt with by the JR of the case in first instance (Philips v Belkin). Then we would also know which language could be used – in this case, it would have been German or English . I have already proposed a more practical way to deal with this issue: make access in principle automatic after conclusion of the proceedings as far as not confidential, unless one of the parties raises an objection.
Full Decision Text
Anordnung des Berufungsgerichts des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 30. September 2026 betreffend einen Antrag auf Zugang zum Register (R. 262.1(b) VerfO) Hier: Verfahrenssprache ANTRAGSTELLERIN Hurtel Sp. z o.o., Zielona Góra, Polen (im Folgenden “Hurtel”) vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Dr. Georg Andreas Rauh, Kanzlei Vossius & Partner Rechtsanwälte Patentanwälte, München, Deutschland ANTRAGSGEGNERIN (BERUFUNGSKLÄGERIN IM HAUPTVERFAHREN UND K LÄGERIN IM VERFAHREN FOR DEM GEI) Koninklijke Philips N.V., Eindhoven, Niederlande (im Folgenden: “Philips”) vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Dr. Tilman Müller and weitere Rechtsanwälte der Kanzlei Bardehle Pagenberg, Hamburg, Deutschland A NTRAGSGEGNER (BERUFUNGSBECKLAGTE IM HAUPTVERFAHREN UND BEKLAGTE VOR DEM GEI) 2. Belkin GmbH, Aschheim, Germany, 3. Belkin International Inc., El Segundo, California, United States of America, 4. Belkin Limited, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom, (im Folgenden für alle im Singular: “Belkin”) vertreten durch Dr. Philipp Cepl und weitere Rechtsanwälte der Kanzlei DLA PIPER UK LLP Rechtsanwälte, München, Deutschland UPC Court of Appeal UPC-CoA-164/2026 STREITPATENT EP 2 867 997 VERFAHRENSSRPACHE Deutsch E NTSCHEIDENDE R ICHTERIN Panel 2 Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur SACHVERHALT 1. Mit Entscheidung vom 3. Oktober 2025 hat das Berufungsgericht rechtskräftig über die Berufungen von Philips und Belkin gegen die Entscheidung der Lokalkammer München vom 13. September 2024 entschieden. 2. Hurtel beantragt Einsicht in die Verfahrensakte wie folgt: “access is granted to the pleadings and evidence logged by the parties to the Unified Patent Court in proceedings UPC-CoA-683/2024 and recorded by the court registry, in each case in a version redacted to remove personal data and confidential information, or in a non-confidential version. According to the case overview available on the UPC website, the request relates in particular to the following documents and their attachments, insofar as these have been filed by the parties and recorded by the Registry: GRÜNDE 3. Die Verfahrenssprache des Verfahrens auf Akteneinsicht entspricht der Verfahrenssprache des Hauptverfahrens. Da die Verfahrenssprache des Hauptverfahrens Deutsch ist, ist der Antrag auf Akteneinsicht in deutscher Sprache einzureichen. ANORDNUNG Hurtel erhält Gelegenheit, den Antrag auf Akteneinsicht in der Verfahrenssprache Deutsch einzureichen bis 9. Oktober 2026. Erlassen am 30. September 2026 Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteurPatricia Ursula Rombach Digitally signed by Patricia Ursula Rombach Date: 2026.09.30 09:59:07 +02'00'
Key Holdings
- A third-party request under Rule 262 RoP for access to pleadings and evidence must be submitted in the language of the main proceedings ('Hauptverfahren').
- Where an access request under Rule 262 RoP is filed in an unauthorized language (English instead of German), the applicant may be given a deadline to refile the request in the language of the main proceedings.
- The Judge-Rapporteur treats access proceedings as linked to the underlying main proceedings rather than autonomous proceedings for language determination purposes.
Tags
- Wrong language?
- Access to written pleadings and evidence
- Language of the proceedings