ARTICLE
8 September 2025

CoA, August 21, 2025, Order On Simultaneous Interpretation, UPC_CoA_317/2025

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
In the absence of any consent by the Court to hear witnesses or experts at an oral hearing in a language other than the language of the proceedings...
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Request for simultaneous interpretation pursuant to Rule 109.2 RoP must be justified

In the absence of any consent by the Court to hear witnesses or experts at an oral hearing in a language other than the language of the proceedings, and absent any interpretation need for the judges, a request for a court-arranged simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing pursuant to R. 109.2 RoP must be justified by the requesting party.

The fact that the defendant is based in a country where the language of proceedings is not an official language does not make it appropriate to order a court-arranged simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing pursuant to R. 109.2 RoP. The same applies to the fact that persons employed by a party will have considerable difficulties in following the oral submissions and the communications during the oral hearing. The parties are represented by their representatives who are familiar with the language of proceedings and the presence of company officials at the oral hearing is voluntary.

Instead, the party can engage an interpreter at its own expense pursuant to Rule 109.4 RoP, provided that it informs the Registry at the latest two weeks before the oral hearing.

2. Division

CoA Luxembourg

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_317/2025; UPC_CoA_376/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal proceedings

5. Parties

Appelant/Applicant: Barco N.V.

Respondent/Defendants: Yeahlink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yeahlink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 732 827

7. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 109 RoP

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More