Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) (UPC_CoA_317/2025)
Decision date:
21 August 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- Ahead of an in‑person oral hearing, Yealink requested simultaneous interpretation from the language of the proceedings (English) into Mandarin under Rule 109 RoP and for the Registry to make the arrangements, or, alternatively, permission to arrange interpreters at its cost.
- Yealink argued that simultaneous interpretation was appropriate because it is based in China (where English is not an official language), the case involves wireless presentation technology, and its company representatives would struggle to follow technical and operational arguments without real‑time interpretation. It further submitted that Barco chose the forum, language and parties, so interpretation costs should be costs of the proceedings.
- The Court of Appeal's judge-rapporteur held that the request was admissible (lodged within the one‑month window and compliant with Rule 109.1) but was unjustified on the merits.
- Article 51(2) UPCA and Rule 109 RoP permit court‑provided interpretation “to the extent deemed appropriate”. UPC proceedings are adversarial and commercial in nature and parties receive pleadings in the language of proceedings ahead of the oral hearing and therefore have time to organise themselves accordingly relative to the language of the proceedings. Absent court consent to hear witnesses/experts in another language (Rules 112.6, 177.2(f) RoP) and absent any interpretation needed for the judges, a party must justify a request for simultaneous interpretation (Rule 109.2 RoP).
- The fact that a defendant is based in a country where the language of proceedings is not an official language does not generally justify simultaneous interpretation. Parties must be represented under Article 48 UPCA and Rule 8.1 RoP by lawyers/patent attorneys familiar with the language. Difficulties for in‑house counsel or company officials do not generally justify simultaneous interpretation because their presence at the hearing is voluntary.
- The judge-rapporteur noted that parties remain free to engage their own interpreter at their expense, provided the Registry is informed at least two weeks before the hearing (Rule 109.4 RoP).
- On Yealink’s alternative request, the judge-rapporteur clarified the distinction between Rules 109.2 and 109.4 RoP. Under Rule 109.2 RoP the arrangements for simultaneous interpretation are made by the court and the costs become costs of the proceedings. If a party engages its own interpreter under Rule 109.4, that party bears the costs alone.
- As such, Yealink’s request for simultaneous interpretation was denied.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.