UPC_CoA_523/2024 – Sumi v Syngenta
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Pharma/Bio
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Translation not necessary Facts Syngenta attached an exhibit in German to its Statement of Response, and requested to be allowed not to prepare a translation. During the interim conference, Sumi Agro, when requested, left the issue to the discretion of the Court of Appeal. Decision The request is granted. Comment 1. In her reasoning, the JR makes clear that a party must provide translations of documents which are not filed in the language of the proceedings, unless the Court of Appeal accepts that no translation is necessary. 2. Although the reasoning of the JR is fully in accordance with the Rules, it would be practical if the Court of Appeal would hold in a future case that a general exception exists for documents in English. All judges of the Court can read and understand English and the same may be expected from Representatives.
Full Decision Text
1 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 27 December 2024 on a request that a document need not be translated (R.13.1(q) RoP) APPELLANT (AND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) 1. Sumi Agro Limited 2. Sumi Agro Europe Limited 1–2 both UK registered companies with registered branch offices in Allershausen, Germany (hereinafter jointly ‘Sumi Agro‘) 1–2 represented by: Gareth Williams, European Patent Attorney (Marks & Clerk LLP, London, UK), Johannes Heselberger, Rechtsanwalt, Dr. Axel B. Berger, Patentanwalt, Dr. Kerstin Galler, Rechtsanwältin and Dr. Markus Ackermann, European Patent Attorney (Bardehle Pagenberg, Munich, Germany) RESPONDENT (AND APPLICANT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) Syngenta Limited, Bracknell, Berkshire, UK (hereinafter ‘Syngenta‘) represented by: Dr. Jörn Peters, Benjamin Grzimek and Aylin Cremers, Rechtsanwälte (Fieldfisher, Düsseldorf, Germany), Prof. Dr. Aloys Hüttermann, Patentanwalt (Michalski, Hüttermann & Partner, Düsseldorf, Germany), Dr. Filip Alois J. De Corte, and Dr. Christopher Andrews, Patentanwälte (Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Basel, Switzerland) PATENT AT ISSUE EP 2 152 073 PANEL AND DECIDING JUDGE This order has been adopted by Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_523/2024 APL_51115/2024 2 IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Local Division Munich, 27 August 2024, ACT_23636/2024, UPC_CFI_201/2023 SUMMARY OF FACTS AND INDICATION OF THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS 1. With the Statement of response, Syngenta attached (insofar as is relevant here), Exhibit FF25 in German and requested to be allowed not to prepare a translation. 2. When requested by the judge-rapporteur at the interim conference, Sumi Agro had no views about the need for translation but left this to the discretion of the Court of Appeal. REASONS 3. Under R.13.1(q) RoP, a Statement of claim shall contain a list of the documents, including any witness statements, referred to in the Statement of claim, together with any request that all or part of any such document need not be translated and/or any request pursuant to Rule 262.2 or Rule 262A. Furthermore, the judge-rapporteur shall decide on any request made pursuant to paragraph 1(q) as soon as practicable after his or her designation. 4. R.13.3 RoP applies mutatis mutandis for other types of submissions, although not explicitly for a Statement of response in appeal proceedings. Submission of new evidence in appeal proceedings is however the exception, given that evidence which has not been submitted by a party during proceedings before the Court of First Instance may be disregarded by the Court of Appeal (R.222.2 RoP). 5. Nevertheless, pursuant to R.7 RoP, 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. Where the 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 the Rules. 6. From this can be deduced that a party in appeal proceedings will be relieved from the duty to provide translations of documents filed first with the Court of Appeal only if the Court of Appeal accepts this. 7. In the present case there is no need for translation of Exhibit FF25. ORDER The judge-rapporteur decides that Exhibit FF25 does not need to be translated by Syngenta. Issued on 27 December 2024 Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur
Key Holdings
- The Court of Appeal granted a request to waive the requirement for a translation of a German exhibit, despite the general rule requiring translations for documents not filed in the language of the proceedings.
- The decision highlights the Court's discretion in waiving translation requirements for specific documents.
- The comment suggests a practical need for a general exception for English documents in future cases, given the linguistic capabilities of the Court and representatives.
Tags
- Evidence
- Rules of Procedure
- Translation