UPC-Court of Appeal: Procedural decision concerning simultaneous interpretation at an oral hearing

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 simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing must be justified by the requesting party. The fact that the defendant in proceedings for interim measures is based in a country where the language of proceedings is not an official language does not, generally, make it appropriate to order simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing. The parties are required to be represented, and the representative will normally be a lawyer or patent attorney who is familiar with the language of proceedings. Neither does the fact that persons employed by a party (for example inhouse counsel or company directors) will have considerable difficulties in following the oral submissions and the communications during the oral hearing generally make it appropriate to order simultaneous interpretation. The presence of company officials at the oral hearing is voluntary. Instead, the party can engage an interpreter at its own expense, provided that it informs the Registry at the latest two weeks before the oral hearing(UPC 21.8.2025; CoA 317/2025, CoA 376/2025).