No language change at Central Division

There have been many requests, many successful, to change the language of the proceedings at a Local or Regional Division of the UPC into the language of the patent (usually English).  This Order confirms that there is no provision to change the language of proceedings at the Central Division of the UPC, which must be the language of the patent.

The Claimant SprintRay sought revocation of EP3762212 at the Paris Central Division.  The patent was granted in German and so the revocation action was filed with German as the language of the proceedings in accordance with Article 49(6) UPCA “The language of proceedings at the central division shall be the language in which the patent concerned was granted.”

The Defendants (patent proprietors) sought a change of the language to English, or, in the alternative, that they be permitted to file written submissions in English and that the interim conference and oral hearing be conducted in English.  Their arguments were that English is the main language of the UPC and EPO, that the technical documentation related to the patent is largely in English, and that the correspondence preceding the legal dispute was conducted in English.

The Paris Central Division in a judgment of the full panel, rejected the request as inadmissible, holding that Article 49(6) UPCA allows for no derogations.  While Rule 323 RoP provides the possibility of language change to the language of the patent, this only applies at Local and Regional Divisions (the only Divisions where a language other than the language of the patent can be employed initially).  The Court therefore saw no legal basis for the language change request, and moreover held that this was not an unintended regulatory gap but a deliberate legislative decision.

Furthermore, the Court held that the language of proceedings being German was decisive for the written submissions also.  There is no legal basis for deviating from the rule.  Deviation from the language of the proceedings at the interim conference requires agreement of both parties (Rule 105.3 RoP), which was absent.  For the oral hearing, the Court held that the language of the proceedings is mandatory, and there is no legal basis for deviation.  Therefore, the alternative request was also rejected.