Language protections don’t bite if you have a website

KeyMed v. PR Medical
‍
UPC_CFI_141/2026 (Milan LD), order of 6 March 2026 ^[1]

The Milan Local Division rejected a preliminary objection based on Rule 14.2(b) RoP, setting a very high bar for objections based on this language requirement, which is intended to protect SMEs from being forced into litigation in an unfamiliar language.

Article 33(1) UPCA sets out the competent local or regional division (or divisions) before which an infringement action can be brought, which is generally either the division corresponding to any country where actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur (Article 33(1)(a)) or the country where the defendant has its principle place of business (Article 33(1)(b)). In cases where the only competent local or regional division is that of the contracting member states where the defendant is domiciled, Rule 14.2(b) RoP requires that the language of proceedings be an official language of that contracting member state. For example, where an infringement action is brought against an Italian company based on infringement that has only taken place in Italy, the language of proceedings should be Italian.

In the present case, the action was brought against an Italian defendant in the Italian local division, but the language of proceedings chosen by the claimant, a UK company, was English. The defendant raised a preliminary objection based on Rule 14.2(b) and requested that the language of proceedings be changed from English to Italian.

The court rejected the preliminary objection, noting in particular the defendant had, amongst other things, at least threatened infringement in other contracting member states via its website. According to Article 33(1)(a), the threat of infringement is sufficient to establish the potential competence of other local divisions than the Italian local division to hear the case (based on the place where threatened infringement may occur).

While the specific facts of this case are not clear from the short order, it suggests that any defendant who may offer an allegedly infringing product or service via a website that is accessible outside of their country of domicile may fail to meet the criteria for Rule 14.2(b) RoP to bite. This establishes a rather high bar that in the modern world is very unlikely to be met, raising the question of whether Rule 14.2(b) will ever practically be a useful protection for SMEs.

[1] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/182801

‍