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

No language change at Central Division
08 October 2026
Proceedings before the UPC Central Division must be conducted in the language in which the patent was granted. There is no legal basis to change that language. In a revocation action concerning a German-language patent, the Paris Central Division rejected a request to switch the language of proceedings to English, and also rejected a subsidiary request to allow written submissions in English and hold the hearing in English, holding that Article 49(6) UPCA permits no derogation and reflects a deliberate legislative choice.
​
Criteria for obtaining an order to produce evidence under Rule 190
07 October 2026
This appeal judgment clarifies that Rule 190 orders to produce evidence require three cumulative conditions: specificity, necessity and proportionality, and cannot be used for fishing expeditions. The Court of Appeal confirmed that first instance judges enjoy a broad margin of discretion when assessing such requests, and upheld the order requiring production of two fabric samples for ballistic testing. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.
​
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.
​