Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Katun Germany GmbH and Others

This order concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation filed by the Claimant, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 686 683 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Defendants are Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. The Claimant had opted for English as the language of the proceedings.

On 8 December 2025, the Claimant filed a request under R. 109.1 RoP for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing. The Claimant argued that not all of its corporate representatives joining the hearing online from Japan were sufficiently proficient in English to follow the proceedings in full detail. Due to the time difference, the representatives would join from different locations as the Claimant's Japanese office would close during the hearing, making it impossible to have an interpreter physically present there. The Claimant also noted that the Defendants' corporate representatives were native English speakers, and that interpretation was necessary to ensure due process and equality of arms.

The Defendants did not object to the Claimant engaging an interpreter at its own expense under R. 109.4 RoP, but objected to any court-organised simultaneous interpretation and the associated costs or cost risks. They argued that the presence of corporate representatives was voluntary and that the Claimant's legal representatives were fully proficient in the language of proceedings.

The court found the request admissible, having been filed within the one-month period under R. 109.1 RoP and meeting the formal requirements. The court applied a twofold 'appropriateness test' previously identified by the Local Division The Hague in UPC_CFI_195/2024 (Szymon Spyra v. Amycel) and concurred with by the Düsseldorf Local Division in UPC_CFI_355/2023 (Fujifilm v. Kodak).

At the first stage, the court held that allowing simultaneous interpretation was appropriate, as the purpose of such interpretation is to enable participants who do not speak the language of proceedings well enough to actively participate. The Claimant was therefore granted the opportunity to engage an interpreter at its own expense under R. 109.4 RoP, who may use the equipment available in the courtroom.

At the second stage, however, the court held that it was not appropriate for the costs of interpretation to become costs of the proceedings under R. 150 RoP. The court reasoned that Japanese is neither an official language of a Contracting Member State nor an official or designated language of the Düsseldorf Local Division. The court noted that the Court cannot be expected to provide translations in all languages. The Claimant's interests were adequately represented by its English-speaking legal representatives, citing UPC_CoA_317/2025 (Barco v. Yealink) and UPC_CFI_367/2023 (CEAD v. BEGO). The voluntary participation of corporate representatives did not justify increasing the costs of the proceedings, and providing court-organised interpretation would require significant organisational effort from the registry.

The final order allowed the Claimant to engage an interpreter at its own expense who may use the courtroom equipment, but dismissed the request in all other respects.