Language change not allowed if not language of the patent

​
Darren Smyth
​
May 16, 2024
#
UPC
#
Recent cases
#
Language
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

R.262A applications required to maintain confidentiality in UPC Proceedings
03 March 2026
The Court of Appeal clarified the necessity of formal applications to maintain confidentiality in Unified Patent Court (UPC) proceedings when disclosing ordered information. This ruling arose from a dispute involving patent infringement and confidentiality claims between EOFlow and Insulet.
​
Long arm not available for amended patent
02 March 2026
IMC Créations is a French company specialising in anti-theft systems for vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles. Among other things, it sells locks for the side and rear doors of commercial vehicles. Mul-T-Lock belongs to the Assa Abloy group and specialises in high security locking and access control systems, in particular pick-resistant keys and locks. IMC alleged that Mul-T-Lock’s MPV 1000 padlock infringes its unitary patent EP4153830 and the corresponding Swiss national validation.
​
Re-establishment of rights following failure to apply for a cost decision in time
02 March 2026
The dispute arises out of earlier proceedings between Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (claimant) and Vibrantz GmbH (defendant), relating to European Patent No. 3215288. The Munich Local Division issued a substantive decision on 10 October 2025 addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. Among other findings, the court partially revoked the patent in three Contracting Member States and dismissed the infringement action. In its cost decision, the court apportioned 40% of the costs to the defendant and 60% to the claimant.
​