1. Key takeaways
Applicant/Defendant has to bear the cost of simultaneous interpretation in the case of a Polish translation
To effectively meet the requirements of the fundamental right to be heard, it is important to allow parties to use simultaneous interpreter(s) if they deem this necessary to enable them to fully participate in the oral hearing that is held in a language that they are not familiar with. In this case, the Applicant and Defendant in the main action, who is a Polish private individual, deems it necessary to use an interpreter to/from Polish during the oral hearing to be able to participate fully.
Polish is neither an official language of a Contracting Member State (CMS), nor is it an official or designated language of the CMS of the Local Division The Hague where the main action was filed. The language of the European patent, that is the subject of this action, is English. Polish is also neither an official or designated language of any other Local or Regional Division of the UPC, nor of the European Patent Office. Generally, it cannot reasonably be expected that the UPC provides translations to all languages, even if these have no relationship with the UPC or with one or more CMS. On the other hand, the Applicant has chosen to expand his business outside Poland to UPC territory where he cannot, or at least not usually, conduct his business in Polish. He also deliberately took the risk that he would be taken to court over patent infringement in the Netherlands.
2. Division
LD The Hague
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_195/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Applications for provisional measures
5. Parties
Applicant: n.a.
Respondent: Amycel LLC
6. Patent(s)
EP 1 993 350
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 51 (2) UPCA, R. 109.1 RoP, R. 150 RoP
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.