Google LLC and Google Germany AG v. BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, 11 August 2026, Case no. UPC_CFI_2082/2026
Even though the respective size of the parties and their domiciliation are important factors to decide on an application pursuant to R. 323 RoP, the fact that the Claimants have demonstrated their capacity to litigate in English by filing other actions in comparable circumstances shall be taken into account and considered with regard to the need for efficient communication and coordination of the adverse party that must prepare its defence within strict time constraints.
BF exaQC and ParTec had brought infringement proceedings against the Google company defendants in German. Google requested a change of the language regime to English, which was the language of the patent in suit, pursuant to RoP R. 323. The application was forwarded to the President of the CFI pursuant to R. 323.1. The claimants requested that the application be dismissed, alternatively that they should be permitted to file pleadings in German with translations to follow in accordance with a time limit to be set by the Court.
Google argued as follows: English had been designated as an available language for proceedings in the LD Mannheim. Even if the balancing of respective interests of the parties had been equal, which was not the case here, the position of the Defendants was decisive. English was the working language of the Defendants and was the most commonly used language in the relevant field of technology. Further the Claimants would not suffer any disadvantage with a change to English: it was not unfair to them to use the language in which the patent in suit was granted and they had also initiated parallel proceedings in respect of the same patent against another defendant in English. ParTech’s website was also exclusively in English. (The other Claimant did not appear to have a website.)
The Court broadly agreed with Google’s submissions. Even though the respective size of the parties and their domicile must be taken into account as a general rule to ensure a fair access to justice especially for SMEs, it cannot be decisive in the present case in light of the proven capacity of the Claimants to conduct their proceedings in English, while the Defendants were facing a significant procedural disadvantage in the preparation of their defence in German within tight time limits. The requested change would not affect the course of the proceedings. Accordingly, the application to change the language of the proceedings to English was granted.
A copy of the decision can be found here.
