REGISTER now: Sweden Event - A new era for innovation: AI, the UPC and global patent opportunities
​

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

Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
​
Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
​
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.
​