The Agreement provides that Contracting States which share an official language with an official language of the European Patent Office, namely English, French or German, no longer require the translation of European patents into one of their official languages. Other Contracting States must choose one of the official languages of the EPO as the “prescribed language” into which European patents must be translated in order for them to enter into force in their country. However, they reserve the right to request a translation of the claims into one of their official languages. The agreement is the result of a process launched at the Paris Conference of 24 and 25 June 1999, an intergovernmental conference of the Member States of the European Patent Organisation held in Paris at the invitation of the French Government. [25] The Conference adopted the mandate to establish two working groups to submit reports to the governments of the Contracting States on the reduction of the cost of European patents and the harmonization of patent litigation. [25] The first working group eventually resulted in the London Agreement, while the second group led to the proposal for a European Agreement on Patent Litigation. More specifically, the first working group was tasked with drawing up an “Optional Protocol to the EPC” in which its signatory states undertake not to require the translation of the description of the European patent, provided that it is available in English. [or alternatively] if it is available in one of the official languages of the EPO designated by the respective signatory State. »; [25] The name “London Protocol” is sometimes used to refer to the London Agreement because the original mandate referred to a protocol rather than an agreement. [Notes 1] The following States do not share an official language with the EPO and require that a translation of claims be filed in one of their official languages if the European patent has been granted in English or translated into English and filed under Article 65(1) EPC: Croatia**, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, the Netherlands and Sweden. With the exception of Croatia, the specification of the European patent may also be filed in those countries in the respective national language.
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia only require a translation of claims into their respective official languages, regardless of the official language in which the EPO granted the patent. All EPC Contracting States have required, under Article 65(3) EPC, that the European patent be considered invalid from the outset in the event of non-compliance with the relevant national provisions. The circumstances in which such a loss of rights occurs shall be governed by the national law of the Contracting States concerned. In most Contracting States, the time limit for the submission of the translation is not extendable. As a result, the Metropolitan Court of Appeal did not find that a preliminary injunction was necessary on the basis of the right to special recognition. Although the court of second instance agreed with the trial court that an injunction was not necessarily based on irreparable damage, it did not specify the translation requirements for section 35 of the Patent Act and the obligation to fault or impute. The agreement on the application of Article 65 EPC – the London Agreement – is an optional agreement aimed at reducing the cost of translating European patents. It is the result of many years of efforts to establish a cost-optimal post-grant translation regime, which began in the 1990s within the framework of the European Patent Organisation and gained momentum at the Paris Intergovernmental Conference on 24 and 25 June 1999 (see OJ No 1999). EPO 1999, 545). It was concluded at the Intergovernmental Conference held in London on 17 October 2000 (see OJ No EPO 2001, 549). In accordance with § 84/H (10a), the patent proprietor may, with the exception of the cases referred to in § 84/H (1) and 1a), at any time file the Hungarian translation of the text with HIPO beyond the claims of the European patent.
If a version going beyond the claims has been filed, the scope of protection of a validated European patent is determined after translation in accordance with § 84/J (1) and (2). The Metropolitan Court noted that, although Hungarian validation requirements can only be met by filing the Hungarian translation of claims, patent holders have a wide range of options to file and publish the full Hungarian translation before, at or after the validation of a European patent. Under Article 84/E of the patent, the patent proprietor already has the right to obtain provisional protection at an early stage by requesting the official publication of the Hungarian translation of the claims of the European patent application examined by the EPO. If an application is granted, it is necessary to file a translation of the claims into French and German (provided that the application is in English). That has not changed in the context of the London Agreement. After grant, most Member States of the European Patent Convention (EPC) required the filing of a translation of the entire specification into the national language of the State in order for the patent to take effect in that State. The preparation of these necessary translations could represent up to about 40% of the total cost of obtaining a European patent. Contracting States to the London Convention which share an official language with the EPO, namely France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, waive the translation requirements altogether. In addition, a State party to the Convention also reserves the right to require the patent proprietor to provide a translation into one of the official languages of the State in the event of a dispute relating to a European patent. If it cannot be expected that the description of a patent available only in a foreign language will be understood by a company because of the nature of its normal economic activity, its size or any other reason, the patent proprietor is generally not entitled to a particular assessment if he has not filed the Hungarian translation of the description of the European patent. .