Executive Summary
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application regarding simultaneous interpretation in a patent infringement case. The claimant, Dolby International AB, sought judicial assistance to ensure their non-German speaking representatives could participate fully in the oral hearing. Although the court agreed that interpretation was necessary for active participation, it refused to bear the costs of the service. Instead, the claimant is permitted to hire an interpreter at their own expense, setting a clear precedent on the financial burden of language support in UPC proceedings.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
While the need for simultaneous interpretation during oral hearings was deemed appropriate (Stage 1), the court ruled that it was not reasonable or proportionate for the costs of such services to be borne by the proceedings (Stage 2). The claimant must arrange and pay for the interpreter themselves.
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
EOFlow Co., Ltd.vsInsulet Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for expedition rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. EOFlow sought to accelerate the appeal process to facilitate the joinder of parallel actions before oral hearings. However, the court rejected this request, finding that EOFlow's delay in filing its statement of grounds prejudiced the respondent, Insulet. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to procedural fairness and proportionality when managing timelines.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLCvsViatris Santé
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for maintaining confidentiality in proceedings. The court ruled that merely requesting confidentiality under R. 262.2 RoP is insufficient to restrict disclosure by opposing parties; a formal application under R. 262A RoP must be made simultaneously with lodging confidential evidence. This ruling emphasizes that unrestricted access is the default, and procedural compliance is mandatory for any restriction.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.vsHMD Global Oy
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving HMD Global Oy and Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. The Court ruled in favor of HMD Global, granting its request to change the court language from German to English (the patent grant language). The ruling underscores the importance of considering the defendant's operational needs and ability to coordinate internally when balancing fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA.
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This preliminary order in a SEP infringement case highlights the UPC's commitment to procedural efficiency. The court denied a request by VIVO Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. to postpone its Statement of Defence filing deadline pending the resolution of a Preliminary Objection concerning jurisdiction and FRAND defenses. The ruling reinforces that defendants must not use POs as a mechanism to unduly delay core proceedings, especially when the underlying defense (FRAND) would be raised anyway.
Insulet CorporationvsEOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for confidentiality concerning information exchanged during infringement litigation. The court ruled that once a party provides information without restriction under a court order, the recipient loses the basis to restrict its use. This clarifies the scope of confidentiality protections in the UPC, emphasizing that specific requests (R. 262A RoP) are needed when disclosure is mandated by the court.
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.