ESKO-SOFTWARE BV, ESKO-GRAPHICS BV v. IN(K)CONTROL BV, UPC CFI Brussels Local Division, Case no. UPC_CFI_871/2026, UPC_CFI_871/2026
In an order of 27 April 2026, the President of the Court of First Instance dismissed an application by Esko Software BV and Esko Graphics BV to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English before the Brussels Local Division. The infringement action, filed on 10 March 2026 by In(k)control BV, concerns EP 3841735, entitled “Method and system for improving the print quality”. Both claimant and defendants are domiciled in the Dutch speaking region of Belgium, although the claimant is a small enterprise, while the defendants form part of a large international group.
Esko applied on 16 April 2026 under Rule 323 RoP, relying on Article 49(5) UPCA. After In(k)control filed comments, Esko lodged an additional reply without authorisation. The Court held that this further submission was inadmissible, emphasising that rapid decisions on language requests are essential for efficient case management and that Rule 323.2 RoP does not permit further filings without prior authorisation.
The Court confirmed that the language change application itself was admissible. It held that a request under Article 49(5) UPCA need not be included in the Statement of Defence and may be filed at an early stage. Rule 19.2(a) RoP, concerning objections to the language of the Statement of Claim, was found inapplicable, as Esko’s request was based on fairness considerations rather than compliance with Article 49(1) or (2) UPCA.
On the merits, Esko argued that English should be adopted because the patent and EPO proceedings were in English, much of the Statement of Claim and evidence relied on English-language material, and English is the predominant language in the printing technology sector. In(k)control opposed this and argued that the fact that the patent was granted in English was not sufficient to consider a change of language. It stated that all parties are based in a Dutch-speaking region and that it is a much smaller enterprise litigating against a much larger group, and that changing language would generate unnecessary cost and complexity in a front loaded system.
Applying Article 49(5) UPCA and Court of Appeal guidance, the Court held that all relevant circumstances must be assessed, including the parties’ domicile and size. While English is widely used in the relevant technology and offers practical advantages, these factors did not outweigh the claimant’s position as a small enterprise and the fact that Dutch is the local language of all parties. As Esko failed to show that proceeding in Dutch would place it at a significant disadvantage, fairness did not justify overriding the claimant’s choice of language, and the application was dismissed.
A copy of the order / decision can be found here.
