Case Law
Article 45: Public proceedings

Court of Appeal – Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 17/04/2024, Curio Bioscience Inc./ 10x Genomics, Inc. (Registry number : APL_12116/2024 ORD_18194/2024)
Example of decision on the language of proceedings: “24. Another relevant circumstance related to parties is their size relative to each other. A multinational company with a substantial legal department has more resources to deal with and coordinate international disputes in different languages than a small company with limited resources that is only active on a limited number of markets.”
“33. In the UPC proceedings, the importance of the (choice of) language of the patent is underlined by Art.49(6) UPCA, according to which the language of proceedings at the central division shall be the language in which the patent was granted. This means that a patent proprietor must also anticipate to litigate there in the language of the patent.”
“42. The Court of Appeal recognizes that a change of language at this stage of the proceedings may prolong the time necessary for drafting an urgent preliminary measure decision. However, it should be observed that the Federal Republic of Germany has designated English as language of proceedings for the Düsseldorf Local division with an indication in the meaning of R.14.2(c) RoP. The judge-rapporteur may provide that the Court may make any order and deliver any decision in the official language of the Contracting Member State – German – together with a certified translation. The additional work would then be limited to the translation of the decision and is thus of limited weight.”
“44. […] There is no reason why a language change request must not be decided after the last oral hearing of the Court of First Instance. To the contrary, the language of the proceedings at the Court of First Instance also determines the language of proceedings at the Court of Appeal (Art. 50 UPCA). The applicant of a R.323 RoP request therefore continues to have an interest in its request also after the oral hearing.”

Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division, Order dated 17/10/2023, OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v. AUTOSTORE AS (Case number UPC_CFI_11/2023, ORD_543819/2023)
Example of decision about the secrecy of evidence: “The interpretation just described builds on Article 45 UPCA and is in line with Rule 262.6, which clarifies that even if a party make a request under Rule 262.2 that certain information of written pleadings or evidence be kept confidential, the Court shall allow the application for access unless legitimate reasons given by the party concerned for the confidentiality of the information outweigh the interest of the applicant to access such information.”