Opens in a new tab

Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CFI, 27 August 2024)

Date27 August 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_41707/2024 · ORD_48649/2024
PartiesHEWLETT-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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 089 230
Fluid 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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 1 737 669
Fluid 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.