1. Key takeaways
A defendant seeking a change in the language of the proceedings does not need to wait for the submission of the statement of defense before lodging a motion for a change of the language
R. 321.1 RoP and R. 322 RoP do not preclude the admissibility of an application to use the language in which the patent was granted which is filed before the statement of defence. Rather it is to be understood that such a request is to be filed at the latest when lodging the statement of defence. An obligation for the defendant to wait with the request until the statement of defence would likely slow down the course of the proceedings.
The usage of English as language of the proceedings can be expected from the users in any supranational environment
Art. 49 (5) UPCA requires that the decision whether or not to change the language of the proceedings into the language in which the patent was granted be determined with regard to the respective interests at stake without it being necessary to constitute a disproportionate disadvantage. It may be sufficient that – amongst all relevant circumstances also to be considered – the language initially chosen is significantly detrimental to the applicant. In the instant case, it weighs in favour of the applicant/defendant that they are a SME.
It is for the Court to decide on a case-by-case basis whether an application pursuant to R. 323 RoP lodged in a different language is to be rejected or not
According to R. 7.1 and R. 14.4 RoP, written pleadings and other documents shall be lodged in the language of the proceedings; otherwise, the Registrar shall return them. However, the Rules do not provide for any consequences for a case in which written pleadings and other documents are lodged in a language that differs from the language of the proceedings are not returned by the Registrar. In the context at hand, the Court saw no relevant reason to reject the submission.
2. Division
Local Division Dusseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_373/2023
4. Type of proceedings
Application to use the language in which the patent was granted
5. Parties
Arake AB
SodaStream
6. Patent(s)
EP 1 793 917
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 323 RoP, Rule 321.1 RoP, Rule 322 RoP, Rule 7.1 RoP, Rule 14.4 RoP, Art. 49(5) UPCA
To view the full article, click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.