UPC_CFI_351/2024;UPC_CFI_595/2024 – Canon v Katun
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Electronics/SEP
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Costs of simultaneous translation Facts The case is in English. The Japanese claimant asks for simultaneous translation of the oral argument in Japanese. The Court The Court refers to a decision of the Local Division in The Hague and applies a two stage test: 1. Is simultaneous appropriate? Answer: yes, it is important that the people of Canon can follow the oral argument. 2. Should these be procedural costs or own costs? Answer: own costs. Comment This is a logical decision. I do not know if all UPC Divisions are equipped with hearing rooms in which simultaneous translation without disturbing the proceeding is possible, but if not, the Registry should arrange for such a set up and not allow a so-called “fluster” interpreter. In my experience it is very annoying if, while you are arguing a case, you at the same time hear very softly the Japanese translation. Especially if you are blessed with a very good hearing which has not been harmed by visiting rock concerts or bands like The Who!
Full Decision Text
Unified Patent Court Düsseldorf Local Division Einheitliches Patentgericht UPCCFI351/2024 Juridiction unifiée : du brevet UPCCFI595/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 29 December 2025 concerning EP 3 686 683 B1 CLAIMANT: Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, represented by its chief executive officer Mr Fujio Mitarai, 30-2, Shimomaruko 3-chome, Ohta-ku, Tokyo, 146-8501, Japan represented by: Attorney-at-law Boris Kreye LL.M., Attorney-at-law Anika Boche, Attorney-at-law Lukas Wosnitza, Maximiliansplatz 22, 80333 Munich, Germany with support by: Patent Attorney Dipl.-Ing. Rainer Böckelen, Patent Attorney Dipl.-Ing. Tobias Schob, TBK, Bavariaring 4-6, 80336 Munich, Germany electronic address for service: UPCCanon@twobirds.com DEFENDANTS: 1. Katun Germany GmbH, represented by its managing directors Mr Thomas Arthur Meij and Mr Robert Henry Moore, Hammfelddamm 4a, 41460 Neuss, Germany 2. Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., represented by its managing director Mr Robert Henry Moore, De Prinsenhof 11, 4004 LN Tiel, The Netherlands 3. Katun Corporation, represented by its chief executive officer Mr Robert Henry Moore, 7760 France Ave. So., Suite 340, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435, United States of America 4. General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., represented by its chairman Mr Jack Wang and its president Mr Jerry Wang, 50, Tzu-Chiang Road, Wu-Chi Dist., Taichung, Taiwan 43547 Defendants 1-4 represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Thure Schubert, Attorney-at-law Dr Matthias Jentsch, Attorney-at-law Luisa Huber, Patent Attorney Arnold Asmussen, Patent Attorney Dr Axel Leins, Vossius & Partner, Patentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte mbB, Siebertstraße 3, 81675 München, Germany European patent n° EP 3 686 683 B1 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf DECIDING JUDGES: This order was issued by Judge Dr Schumacher acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 109.1 RoP – Request for simultaneous interpretation SUMMARY OF FACTS: 1. The Japanese-based Claimant brought an infringement action before the Court and opted for English as the language of the proceedings. The Defendants are based in Germany, the Netherlands, the US and Taiwan. 2. On 8 December 2025, the Claimant filed a request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing. 3. The Claimant stated that not all of its corporate representatives, who will join the hearing online from Japan, are sufficiently proficient in English to follow the hearing in full detail. Furthermore, due to the time difference, the Claimant’s corporate representatives will have to join the hearing remotely from different locations, since the Claimant’s office in Japan will close during the hearing. Therefore, it is not possible to have a simultaneous interpreter present at the Claimant’s Japanese office. The Claimant also points out that the Defendants’ corporate representatives are native English speakers. According to the Claimant, simultaneous interpretation is therefore necessary to ensure the principles of due process and equality of arms by enabling all parties to follow the proceedings and any discussions between the participants on equal terms. 4. The Defendants do not object to the Claimant engaging an interpreter at its own expense pursuant to R. 109.4 RoP, or to the presence of an interpreter during the oral hearing. However, they object to any court-organised simultaneous interpretation and the associated costs or cost risks. They point out that the presence of corporate representatives is voluntary, and that the Claimant’s legal representatives are fully proficient in the language of the proceedings. PARTIES´ REQUESTS: The Claimant requests, that the Court allows simultaneous interpretation into Japanese during the oral hearing and the interpreter to be present at that oral hearing, and II. that the Court instructs the Registry to make all necessary (technical) arrangements for simultaneous interpretation in coordination with Claimant pursuant to R. 109.2 (second sentence) and R. 109.4 RoP. 6. The Defendants request, to reject Claimant´s request for simultaneous interpretation into Japanese during the oral hearing according to R. 109.2 RoP. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER: 7. The Claimant’s request is admissible. It was lodged on 8 December 2025 and thus within the one-month period specified in R. 109.1 RoP. It fulfils the formal requirements as set out in R. 109.1 lit. a-d RoP. 8. Pursuant to Art. 51(2) UPCA, any division of the Court of First Instance shall, at the request of a party and to the extent appropriate, provide interpretation to assist that party in oral proceedings. This general principle is further specified in R. 109.2 RoP, first sentence, to the effect that the judge-rapporteur shall decide, upon a timely request pursuant to R. 109.1 RoP, whether and to what extent simultaneous interpretation is appropriate, and shall instruct the Registry to make all necessary arrangements for simultaneous interpretation. In the event that the judge-rapporteur refuses to order simultaneous interpretation, a party may request arrangements to be made, so far as practically possible, for simultaneous interpretation at their cost, R. 109.2 RoP, second sentence. 9. Costs for simultaneous interpretation are costs of the proceedings to be decided upon under R. 150 RoP, except where a party engages an interpreter at its own expense under R. 109.4 RoP; these costs are borne solely by that party, R. 109.5 RoP. 10. Based on this, the Local Division The Hague has identified the need for a double/twofold ‘appropriateness-test’ under R. 109 RoP. The following must be decided: (1) whether allowing translations during the oral hearing is appropriate, and (2) whether it is appropriate that the costs of such interpretation shall become costs of the proceedings (see UPCCFI195/2024 (LD The Hague), Order of 25 June 2024, para. 5 – Szymon Spyra v. Amycel). The Düsseldorf Local Division has concurred with this (UPCCFI355/2023 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 29 November 2024 – Fujifilm v. Kodak). Allowing simultaneous interpretation is appropriate 11. At the first stage of this test, allowing simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing is appropriate. The purpose of simultaneous interpretation is to enable participants who do not speak the language of the proceedings, or who do not speak it well enough, to actively participate in the oral hearing. According to the Claimant’s submission, not all of its corporate representatives, who will join the oral hearing online from Japan, are sufficiently proficient in English to follow the hearing in full detail. They will therefore only be able to follow the oral hearing, which will be conducted in English, and contribute to the discussion of the facts and issues if necessary if they are assisted by an interpreter. The Claimant is therefore granted the opportunity to engage an interpreter at its own expense (cf. R. 109.4 RoP), who may, if necessary, make use of the equipment available for simultaneous interpretation in the courtroom. The costs for simultaneous interpretation shall not become costs of the proceedings 12. However, at the second stage, it does not seem appropriate for the costs of the simultaneous interpretation to become costs of the proceedings to be decided upon under R. 150 RoP. Japanese is neither an official language of a Contracting Member State nor an official or designated language of the Local Division Düsseldorf, where the main action was filed. As the Local Division The Hague has already pointed out, the Court cannot be expected to provide translations in all languages (UPCCFI195/2024 (LD The Hague), Order of 25 June 2024, para. 10 – Szymon Spyra v. Amycel). The Claimant’s interests are represented by its English-speaking legal representatives (see UPCCoA317/2025, Order of 21 August 2025, para. 14 – Barco v. Yealink; UPCCFI367/2023 (CD Paris), Order of 10 May 2024, para. 16 – CEAD v. BEGO). The fact that corporate representatives wish to participate in the oral hearing on a voluntary basis does not justify an increase in the costs of the proceedings (see UPCCFI367/2023 (CD Paris), Order of 10 May 2024, para. 21 – CEAD v. BEGO; see also UPCCoA317/2025, Order of 21 August 2025, para. 15 f. – Barco v. Yealink; UPCCoA, Order of 11 December 2024, para. 9 – Scandit v. Hand Held). Finally, providing simultaneous interpretation would require a great deal of organisational effort from the registry, which seems inappropriate in this case. ORDER: 1. The Claimant may, at its own expense, engage an interpreter who may, if necessary, use the equipment available in the courtroom for simultaneous interpretation. 2. The request is dismissed in all other respects. Issued in Düsseldorf on 29 December 2025 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Judge Dr Schumacher
Key Holdings
- Costs for simultaneous translation are considered 'own costs' for the requesting party, not procedural costs.
- Simultaneous translation for oral arguments is appropriate for parties to follow proceedings.
- UPC divisions should ensure hearing rooms are equipped for simultaneous translation without disturbing proceedings.
Tags
- Costs
- Language of Proceedings
- Oral Hearing
- Translation