UPC_CFI_440/2023 – ORD_18404/2024 – Change of language before the UPC
EP 3 404 726 granted in English relates to an ultraviolet (UV) light emitting device, adapted to improve light extraction efficiency.
For the outline of the case and the chronology of the events please refer to the corresponding blog entry on the intervention.
We will concentrate here on the request for the change of language.
PHOTON WAVE’s statement in intervention
In its statement in intervention, PHOTON WAVE filed, inter alia, the following request:
– to determine English as the language of the proceedings pursuant to Art 33(4) UPCA before the Paris LD.
The intervener’s point of view
PHOTON WAVE requested a change of language, so that the proceedings will henceforth be conducted in English, without however specifying the applicable procedural rule, stating that the defendant, a French company, has itself made such a request and arguing that its employees understand documents in English, while those in French have to be translated, with the risk of error, loss of information and loss of time and money.
The decision of the Paris LD
The plaintiff, who chose to bring an action in French before the Paris LD in one of the two languages possible before that division, has indicated that it opposes the proposal to change the language of the change the language of the proceedings to English, as requested by the intervener in its brief.
In the present case, therefore, the parties have not agreed to the requested change of language.
The judge-rapporteur, after consulting the Chamber, has already indicated by order, at the request of LASER COMPONENTS, the reasons for his rejection of a proposal to the parties to change the language of proceedings.
Indeed, even if the European patent at issue was granted in English, the plaintiff company, a Korean national, chose to bring its action in English. procedural choice to bring its action in French, which is respectful of the rights of the defendant, a French company established in France.
Neither the nationality of the representative of one of the parties, nor the nationality of the intervening company, constitute serious grounds, which would justify for reasons of convenience or fairness, to propose a change in the language of the proceedings.
Consequently, the conditions laid down by RoP 322 UPC are not met in this case for for a change in the language chosen by the applicant to be decided.
Comments
A Korean company does not file an action for infringement in French before the Paris LD without a hidden agenda.
It appears simply a matter of getting into the court’s good graces.
Even the defendant, a French company, requested a change of language to English as it does not seem bothered to have to discuss the case in English, as moreover the patent is in English.
It is thus possible to question the attitude of the Paris LD, when it claims that the filing its action in French is “respectful of the rights of the defendant”, when the defendant itself is not bothered by English.
The Paris LD goes a trifle too far when it claims that the nationality of the parties do constitute serious grounds, which would justify, for reasons of convenience or fairness, to propose a change in the language of the proceedings.
I would allow myself to allow state that keeping French as language of the proceedings is very convenient for the Paris LD.
That the translations from English to French will have a non-negligible cost, is simply ignored by the panel, but very convenient for it.
The Dutch LD was much more lenient and accepted a change of language to English, as being fair to all parties involved.
The CoA will have a lot to do to bring some reliability when it comes to a change of language at the UPC.
Comments
Leave a comment