Rule 7 – Language of written pleadings and written evidence

1. Written pleadings and other documents, including written evidence, shall be lodged in the language of the proceedings unless the Court or these Rules otherwise provide.

2. Where these Rules or the Court require a pleading or other document to be translated it shall not be necessary to provide a formal certification by the translator as to the accuracy of such translation unless the accuracy is challenged by a party or such certification is ordered by the Court or required by these Rules.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20241227, UPC CoA, Sumi Agro v Syngenta
Rule 13.1(q) RoP (request that document need not be translated in Statement of claim) applies mutatis mutandis for other submissions, although not explicitly for a Statement of response in appeal proceedings. (R. 236 RoP). A party in appeal proceedings will only be relieved from the duty to provide translations of documents filed first with the Court of Appeal if the Court of Appeal accepts this (R. 7 RoP).

Court of First Instance

IPPT20240823, UPC CFI, President, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy 
Change of language from German to English (the language of the patent) granted (Article 49 UPCA). English language application to change the language of the proceedings from German to English declared admissible (Rule 7.1 RoP, Rule 14.4 RoP, Rule 323 RoP). According to R. 7.1 RoP, it is within the Court’s discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis whether an application lodged in a different language under R. 323 RoP should be rejected. 

IPPT20230802, UPC CFI, LD Den Haag, Plant-e v Arkyne

Rule 7 RoP decision: No need to submit Dutch translations of English documents. The [foreign] defendant has not yet appeared, but one cannot see that it could have any interest in a Dutch translation. The request is therefore granted: there is no need to file translations of English-language documents.

IPPT20240806, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Qufora v Sauer
No waiver translation requirements, given that the panel as a whole lacks the necessary language skills with regard to the original German-language documents (Article 51(1) UPCA, Article 42 UPCA, Rule 7(1) RoP). Art. 51 (1) UPCA is based on the idea of a flexible and efficient procedural organisation, whereby an appropriate balance must be struck between the interests of the parties, taking into account the principle of proportionality (recital 5 of the preamble to the UPCA; Art. 42 UPCA). Whether such a waiver is appropriate is determined by the specific circumstances of the individual case. A comprehensive balancing of interests must take place. In particular, the language skills of the parties and their representatives and the language skills of the panel must be taken into account. The volume, the length or the quantity and the nature of the documents in question and their relevance to the proceedings is also of relevance. Other aspects may also be relevant in individual cases.