REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

Language change not allowed if not language of the patent

​
Darren Smyth
​
May 16, 2024
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Recent cases
Language
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V, Rubin Medical ApS UPC_CFI_ 504/2023

Orders of 11 April 2024 (ORD_13986/2024 and ORD_13996/2024) [1]

The claimants (together "Roche") began an infringement claim filed at the Düsseldorf Local Division in the German language against six defendants in respect of EP1970677. Two groups of defendants, Rubin Medical ApS and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. on the one hand and VitalAire GmbH, Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V, Dinno Santé s.a.i., each group being represented by a shared representative, filed requests for the language of proceedings to be changed from German to English.

This case differs from the previous requests for language change because the language of the patent was German. The judge-rapporteur issued two orders in identical terms, one in respect of the application of each group of defendants, denying the request for language change.

The judge-rapporteur noted that the claimants in the infringement action were entitled to make a choice between English and German as the language of the proceedings, choosing between the possibilities set out in Rule 14(1)(a) RoP (official language of the country hosting the division, in this case German) and Rule 14(1)(b) RoP (another language designated by the country, in this case English). Roche having made this election of the Rule 14(1)(a) option, the only legal basis for a party to request a change in language is Rule 323 RoP. However, this only applies to a change to the language in which the patent was granted.

Since the patent at issue was granted in German, no legal route was seen to change the language to English. Therefore the requests were refused.

[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/706 and https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/708

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​