Learn how the UPC’s language rules impact fairness and accessibility in European patent litigation. Key insights for legal professionals!
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has transformed European patent litigation by providing a centralized venue for dispute resolution. As this new legal landscape takes shape, understanding the role of language becomes crucial for legal professionals.
Given the EU’s diverse environment, language is critical in EU legal proceedings. By establishing a structured yet flexible framework, the UPC ensures all parties can participate in litigation while maintaining legal consistency.
This post explores language choice within the UPC, revealing how it balances linguistic diversity with procedural fairness and accessibility.
Language of Proceedings: Central Division vs. Local and Regional Divisions
The language of proceedings within the UPC varies depending on where the case is being heard:
- Central Division
The UPC’s Central Division mainly deals with patent validity cases. These are typically conducted in the patent’s original language. As a result, English, French, or German—the official languages of the European Patent Office (EPO)—are most commonly used in this division.
This approach ensures consistency across cases and reduces the need for translations.
- Local and Regional Divisions
Each member country can choose one or more official EU languages as the language of proceedings for its Local or Regional division. This allows for proceedings to be conducted in a language familiar to the local legal community, while respecting Europe’s linguistic diversity.
English may be offered as an option alongside the local language(s). That’s the case in Belgium, Denmark, and Finland. However, in countries like Germany, France, and Italy, the proceedings are often conducted in the local language, with English not being a default option (*).
In the table below, you’ll find a summary of the language options by UPC division:
|
|
Division | Language(s) |
| Local Division | Vienna (AT) | German, English |
| Brussels (BE) | Dutch, French, German, English * | |
| Copenhagen (DK) | Danish, English | |
| Helsinki (FI) | Finnish, Swedish, English | |
| Paris (FR) | French, English * | |
| Düsseldorf (DE) | German, English * | |
| Hamburg (DE) | German, English * | |
| Mannheim (DE) | German, English * | |
| Munich (DE) | German, English * | |
| Milan (IT) | Italian, English * | |
| The Hague (NL) | Dutch, English | |
| Lisbon (PT) | Portuguese, English | |
| Ljubljana (SI) | Slovenian, English | |
| Regional Division | Nordic-Baltic (SE, EE, LT, LV) | English |
*Despite this flexibility, parties can still agree to use the language in which the patent was granted, subject to court approval.
Case Law: Language Change in Curio Bioscience Inc v 10x Genomics Inc
In this case, the UPC Court of Appeal played a pivotal role in addressing the issue of language change in proceedings.
Curio Bioscience, a U.S.-based company, appealed against a first-instance decision that maintained German as the language of the proceedings. The defendant argued that using German would be unfair and burdensome due to their lack of proficiency.
The Court of Appeal admitted the appeal and ordered a switch to English under Article 49(5) of the UPC Agreement.
- Factors Considered by the Court of Appeal
Article 49(5) UPCA reads as follows:
49(5) At the request of one of the parties and after having heard the other parties and the competent panel, the President of the Court of First Instance may, on grounds of fairness and taking into account all relevant circumstances, including the position of parties, in particular the position of the defendant, decide on the use of the language in which the patent was granted as language of proceedings. In this case the President of the Court of First Instance shall assess the need for specific translation and interpretation arrangements.
Here are the “relevant circumstances” that led the Court of Appeal to grant a language change:
- The language predominantly used in the relevant field of technology and for supporting documents, such as prior art.
- The parties’ nationalities, locations, and ability to understand and participate in the proceedings in the current language.
- The costs and time associated with translations, and whether the parties have the resources to manage these requirements.
- The language in which the patent was originally filed, especially in EPO or UPC revocation actions. Patent holders should be prepared to handle legal proceedings in that language.
The following circumstances were considered irrelevant:
- Having a representative fluent in the language of the proceedings, as it wouldn’t address the challenges that arise from your own unfamiliarity with it.
- The possibility that switching the language of the proceedings might lead to delays.
- The prevalence of the current language of proceedings among EU citizens.
- The national background of the judges in the first instance. If you’re concerned that some judges might miss nuances because of language differences, you can provide translations of your documents or arrange for simultaneous translation during the hearing.
The Implications for Legal Professionals
Legal professionals who understand and adapt to the UPC’s language rules will be better equipped to advocate for their clients. An LSP with expertise in patent law can offer invaluable support throughout the litigation process.
Whether you need precise translations, assistance managing extensive documentation, or real-time interpretation during proceedings… We are here to help you overcome language barriers, so they never hinder your case.
Did you know we are ranked among the 20 LSPs specialized in legal translation services by CSA Research? Reach out to us at info@montero-ls.com for a free consultation.
