Key takeaways
As long as some of the party’s representatives speak/understand the language of the proceedings, there is no reason for simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing pursuant to R. 109 (1), (2) sentence 1 RoP, whereby the costs arising from the simultaneous interpretation are procedural costs
It does not matter what language skills a specific representative of an international team of representatives has. Otherwise, international teams of representatives with different language skills would lead to a significant increase in procedural costs due to simultaneous interpretation of oral hearings.
Given the nature of an international court, not all of the parties’ attendants (e.g. managing directors) are able to follow the legal discussion during the hearing.
Unlike the defendant in the infringement proceedings, the plaintiff is not under comparable time pressure in the nullity proceedings, as the plaintiff is able to consult comprehensively with its representatives and plan its litigation strategy at least during the preparation of the action.
In accordance with R. 109 (2) sentence 2 RoP, representatives of the party who do not speak the language of the proceedings are allowed to use simultaneous interpretation of the oral proceedings at their own expense
The technical equipment available in the court can be used.
Division
Central Division Paris
UPC number
UPC_CFI_367_2023
Type of proceedings
Central revocation action, Request for simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing
Parties
Claimant + Applicant: CEAD B.V. and CAED USA B.V.
Defendant: BEGO Medical GmbH
Patent(s)
EP 2 681 034 B1
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 109 RoP; Art. 49 (6), 51 (2) UPCA; Consideration 6 of the preamble of the UPCA
