Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning a request by the claimant, Dolby International AB, for simultaneous interpretation from German to English at an oral hearing in a patent infringement action. The court allowed Dolby to hire an interpreter at its own cost to use the existing interpretation equipment, but rejected the request to have the interpretation costs treated as procedural costs, finding that Dolby was not disproportionately disadvantaged by the German procedural language given that its legal representatives were German-speaking.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on September 15, 2025, in cases UPC_CFI_135/2024 and UPC_CFI_477/2024, concerning European Patent No. EP 3 605 534 B1. The claimant, Dolby International AB (based in Ireland), had filed a patent infringement action against Beko Germany GmbH (Germany) and Arçelik A.Ş (Turkey) in German as the procedural language. A nullity counterclaim was also involved.
On September 10, 2025, Dolby requested simultaneous interpretation from German to English for the oral hearing scheduled for October 16, 2025, arguing that representatives attending on its behalf did not speak German and could only follow the proceedings with interpretation. As alternatives, Dolby requested cost-sharing (50:50) with the defendants, or that it alone bear the costs if the defendants did not need interpretation. The defendants responded that they did not require interpretation and did not agree to cost-sharing.
The court found the request admissible, having been filed within the deadline under R. 109.1 RoP and meeting the formal requirements of R. 109(a)-(d) RoP. Applying Article 51(2) of the UPCA and R. 109.2 RoP, the court adopted a two-step test previously established by the Local Chamber The Hague (UPC_CFI_195/2024 – Szymon Spyra v. Amycel) and followed by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf (UPC_CFI_355/2023 – Fujifilm v. Kodak).
On the first step, the court found that granting simultaneous interpretation was appropriate, as the goal of interpretation is to enable parties not proficient in the procedural language to actively participate in the oral hearing. Since Dolby's attending representatives did not speak German, they could only adequately follow and contribute to the proceedings with interpreter support.
On the second step, however, the court found it not appropriate for the interpretation costs to become procedural costs. The court reasoned that Dolby was not more challenged by the procedural language than is typical at a multilingual international court (citing UPC_CFI 367/2023 – CEAD v. BEGO). Dolby's interests were being represented by its German-speaking legal representatives, and the additional interest of its non-German-speaking representatives attending the hearing did not justify a court-ordered interpretation with associated procedural cost implications (also citing UPC_CoA – Scandit v. Hand Held). The court further noted that providing court-arranged interpretation would impose significant organizational burden on the registry, which was not appropriate in this case.
The final order: (1) Dolby was permitted to hire an interpreter at its own cost, who could use the existing simultaneous interpretation equipment in the courtroom; (2) Dolby was required to notify the Düsseldorf registry at least two weeks before the oral hearing if it availed itself of this option; and (3) the request was otherwise rejected.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dolby International AB vs Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbHvsRaimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Munich) on June 27, 2025, in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. The plaintiff seeks revocation of claims 1-4 and 7-13 for lack of novelty and inventive step, while the defendant defends the patent as amended under a main request and eleven auxiliary requests. The court scheduled an interim hearing for July 11, 2025, to address procedural matters including the value of the dispute, settlement possibilities, and the scope of the nullity attacks.
TCL Europe SASvsCorning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated on 22 April 2025 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. Following an interim conference held on 28 November 2025, the Judge-rapporteur issued an order on 1 December 2025 setting out procedural directions, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the case, and the date for the oral hearing.
Fingon LLCvsSamsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 839 403 before the Mannheim Local Division. The Defendants objected to the Claimant's reply, arguing it introduced new Trusted Applications and Samsung Galaxy S25 models without seeking leave to amend the case under R. 263 RoP. The Court held that the reply did not constitute an amendment of the case as it merely provided further illustrative examples of the attacked embodiment, and dismissed the Defendants' requests while postponing the decision on exclusion of impugned submissions until after the oral hearing.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard CollegevsVizgen, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding applications for reimbursement of court fees in three appeal proceedings concerning EP 4108782. After allowing withdrawal of the appeals, the court granted 10x's requests for partial reimbursement of court fees based on Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, awarding 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of the written procedure and 20% for two appeals withdrawn before completion of the oral procedure.
The Walt Disney Company Limited and The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.VvsInterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
The Walt Disney entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. before the Local Division Düsseldorf, applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2449782 was granted. InterDigital opposed the request, arguing no significant disadvantage had been shown. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the language changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.