Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CFI, 27 August 2024)
| Date | 27 August 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_41707/2024 · ORD_48649/2024 |
| Parties | HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 27 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_358/2023, ACT_578697/2023, ORD_48649/2024), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division (C. Lignières) granted Hewlett-Packard Development Company’s request to hear, at the oral hearing of 2 October 2024, a witness employed by the HP group, in the infringement action on EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669 against LAMA France. She refused the simultaneous interpretation requested by LAMA.
Question
May an employee of the claimant’s group be heard at the hearing on his contested written statements, and may the other party obtain simultaneous interpretation of his testimony given in English?
Decision
The request complies with Rule 177.1(a) and (b) RoP, since LAMA contests the witness’s written statements. The objections based on his being part of the HP group and his reliance on internal databases do not prevent the hearing: the witness will testify under oath (Rule 178.1 RoP), and oral questions will clarify LAMA’s role in the alleged acts. He will be heard in English, with the arrangements set after the case management conference of 6 September 2024. Interpretation is not needed: English is one of the two languages of proceedings of the Paris Local Division and the common working language of the divisions (principle of economy of means, point 4 of the preamble), LAMA may use its own interpreter at its own cost by notifying the Registry two weeks before the hearing (Rule 109.4 RoP).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: contesting written witness statements opens the way to hearing the witness, a party wanting interpretation before the Paris Local Division should expect to bear it itself.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 104(e), 109, 112.2(b), 176 to 179 and 333, and point 4 of the preamble
Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantHEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.16 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Le témoin salarié du groupe HP sera entendu en anglais à l'audience, sans interprétation simultanée, LAMA pouvant recourir à son propre interprète à ses frais.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 2 089 230mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 1 737 669mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 21 August 2024) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 089 230Fluid ejection device with data signal latch circuitry recorded proprietor: Hewlett Packard Development Co LP | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 13 November 2024) · Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CoA, 24 July 2025) · LIFE 365 v HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (CFI, 18 April 2025) · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 21 August 2024) · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 2 August 2024) · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 18 December 2023) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
EP 1 737 669Fluid ejection device recorded proprietor: Hewlett Packard Development Co LP | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 13 November 2024) · Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CoA, 24 July 2025) · LIFE 365 v HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (CFI, 18 April 2025) · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 21 August 2024) · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 2 August 2024) · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 18 December 2023) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.