1. Key takeaways
Substantive content of application filed in non-EPO language
If an (international) patent application is filed in a non-EPO language, the filing of the translation of the application into the language of the proceedings will define the substantive content of the application with regards to the requirements of inadmissible amendments under Art. 123 (2) EPC.
The translation filed by the applicant/patentee is presumed accurate, because the applicant/patentee has an interest in providing correct translations since the examination proceedings will be based on the translation of the application documents into the language of the proceedings. Parties (of proceedings as well as third parties) and the court can (prima facie) rely on the accuracy of the filed translation.
Correction of an incorrect translation
If the applicant/patentee considers the translation filed to be incorrect and wants to rely on a corrected version, the applicant/patentee needs to prove that the original translation is incorrect; it is insufficient to simply submit a corrected version of the document. A proof of an incorrect translation may be a declaration by a party expert. In the current decision: specifics of Korean language were considered important, hence a linguistic expert on Korean should have been named.
2. Division
Court of Appeal
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_762/2024
UPC_CoA_773/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Appeal against a decision on an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation
5. Parties
Appellant (Claimant): Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
Respondents (Defendants): expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 223 320
7. Jurisdictions
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 302.3 RoP
Art. 123 (2) EPC
Decision APL_64022, 64706-2024 Viosys v. Expert – DE final_signed mt pr is td pdf
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.
