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

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​