The agreement did not change other language provisions applicable prior to the issuance of a European patent, such as the requirement to translate claims for a European patent application “in the two official languages of the European Patent Office, with a different language of procedure,” after receiving notification of Rule 71 (3) CBE indicating that the EPO intends to issue a European patent. Traditionally, the process has been carried out through collaboration with associated foreign agents, partners or otherwise selected in the desired countries, and then managed on an individual basis with the agents of each country, the organization of powers and the possibility for the expert with a complex knowledge of the rules of the country concerned to meet all the requirements. So far, the following countries have approved the agreement: compared to previous patent translation requirements, the amount of translation for companies applying for patent protection in the aforementioned countries has decreased considerably. With France having tabled its ratification instruments on 29 January 2008, the agreement came into force on 1 May 2008. [2] The agreement stipulates that States Parties that share an official language of the European Patent Office, i.e. English, French or German, no longer require the translation of European patents into any of their official languages. Other contracting states must choose one of the EPO`s official languages as the “prescribed language” in which European patents must be translated to enter into force in their countries. However, they reserve the right to require the claims to be translated into one of their official languages. France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco and Switzerland have one of the EPO`s three official languages as their national language. For these countries, it is therefore not necessary to translate a patent application filed and issued in English in French or German. B (excluding claims). The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland have also requested that the patent description be translated into English and translate the claims into their national language. The same is likely for Latvia and Slovenia.
Much of the cost of validation is related to the creation of translations, for a good reason. Rules on the importance of translation accuracy vary from country to country. In some cases, the original text is reset to litigation or infringement rights, but in others, this is not the case, or at least there are interpretations that third-party rights may arise during the period during which an inaccurate translation is in effect. These countries choose one of these three languages (English, French or German) and only need a translation of the patent into the chosen language (provided the patent has not been issued in that language).