2025-08-21 - CoA - Barco v. Yealink Network Technology

- 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 (R. 112.6 RoP, R. 177.2 (f) RoP), 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 in accordance with Art. 48 UPCA and R. 8.1 RoP, 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. - What has been said applies also for simultaneous interpretation at the parties’ cost pursuant to R. 109.2 second sentence. - 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 (R. 109.4 RoP).

The CoA denied Yealink's request for court-arranged simultaneous interpretation from English into Mandarin Chinese at the oral hearing. The court established a strict framework for R.109 RoP: where no witnesses/experts will speak a different language and judges need no interpretation, the requesting party must independently justify the need. Being based in a non-English-speaking country is insufficient — parties must be represented by lawyers familiar with the language of proceedings. Company officials' difficulty following proceedings is also insufficient — their presence is voluntary.