ORD_5108/2025 | EP3511174 | UPC Decision Search

	Type Order Decision	Reference	Court Division Brüssel Brussels Copenhagen Den Haag Düsseldorf Hamburg Helsinki Lisbon Lissabon Luxembourg Luxemburg Mailand Mannheim Milan München Munich Nordic Baltic Regional Division Paris The Hague Vienna			Tags
30 January, 2025	Order	ORD_5108/2025	Mannheim (DE) Local…	EP3511174	Rule 109.1 RoP ...	Please log in to add tags.	Please log in to add notes. Please log in to add tags. Show on UPC ORD_5108/2025 30 January, 2025 Order Summary (AI generated) Parties Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak GmbH Registry Information Registry Number: App_3424/2025 Court Division: Mannheim (DE) Local Division Type of Action: Generic application Language of Proceedings: EN Patent at issue EP3511174 Cited Legal Standards Art. 51(2) UPCA R. 101 RoP R. 109.1 RoP R. 109.2 (1) RoP R. 109.4 RoP R. 150 RoP Rule 109.1 RoP Rule 109.2 Rule 109.4 Rule 109.5 RoP Documents Download Order (EN) Add a custom note or summary to this decision Styles Text Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Bold ⌘B Italic ⌘I Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S Bullet list Ordered list Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B Insert link ⌘K Insert link Unlink Align Left Center Right Mannheim Local Division UPC_CFI_365/2023 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 30 January 2025 concerning EP 3 511 174 CLAIMANT: FUJIFILM Corporation, 26-30, Nishiazabu 2-chome, Minato-ku,Tokyo 106-8620, Japan, represented by: Tobias Hahn, HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, Steinstraße 20, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany electronic address for service: tobias.hahn@hoyngrokh.com DEFENDANT: 1. Kodak GmbH, Kesselstraße 19, 70327 Stuttgart, represented by: Elena Hennecke, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater PartG mbB, Feldmühleplatz 1, 40545 Düsseldorf, Germany electronic address for service: elena.hennecke@freshfields.com 2. Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kesselstraße 19, 70327 Stuttgart, represented by: Elena Hennecke, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater PartG mbB, Maximiliansplatz 13, 80333 Munich, Germany electronic address for service: elena.hennecke@freshfields.com 3. Kodak Holding GmbH, Kesselstraße 19, 70327 Stuttgart, represented by: Elena Hennecke, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater PartG mbB, Maximiliansplatz 13, 80333 Munich, Germany electronic address for service: elena.hennecke@freshfields.com PATENT AT ISSUE: European patent EP3 511 174 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Mannheim DECIDING JUDGES: This order was issued by Judge Prof. Dr. Tochtermann acting as presiding judge and judgerapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Rule 109.1 RoP - Request for simultaneous interpretation SUMMARY OF FACTS : The Claimant is a company based in Japan. It brought an infringement action against the three Defendants, all based in Germany, and chose English as the language of the proceedings. The Claimant filed a request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese at the oral hearing for its attending representatives who do not have the sufficient language skills to follow the course of the oral hearing in English with the necessary level of detail. According to the Claimant, simultaneous interpretation is necessary to enable the Claimant to make use of its procedural rights for reasons of the fair trial principle and equality of arms in the proceedings. The Defendants object to the request only in respect of Rule 109.1 RoP and to the translation costs becoming costs of the proceedings. PARTIES´ REQUESTS: The Claimant requests (App 1460/2025), the simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral proceedings on February 13 and 14, 2025. The Defendants request (App 3424/2025), to reject the Claimant´s request for simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral proceedings according to R. 109.1 RoP. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER: Pursuant to Art. 51(2) UPCA, any division of the Court of First Instance shall, at the request of a party and to the extent appropriate, provide interpretation to assist that party in oral proceedings. This general principle is further specified in R. 109.2 (1) RoP to the effect that the JudgeRapporteur shall decide, upon a timely request pursuant to R. 109.1 RoP, whether and to what extent simultaneous interpretation is appropriate. If he considers it appropriate, he shall instruct the Registry to make all necessary arrangements. The costs of simultaneous interpretation in such a case shall be included in the costs of the proceedings, R. 150 RoP. If the Judge-Rapporteur refuses the request for simultaneous interpretation, a party may, at its own expense, engage a simultaneous interpreter and request that arrangements for simultaneous interpretation be made, as far as is practically possible, at its own expense (Rule 109.2 (2) RoP in conjunction with Rule 109.4 of the RoP; cf. CFI, LD Düsseldorf, UPC_CFI_363/2023, procedural order of 12 July 2024). If a party avails itself of this possibility, the costs incurred shall not be regarded as costs of the proceedings within the meaning of the last sentence of Rule 109.5 RoP; they shall be borne solely by the party instructing the interpreter. LD The Hague and Düsseldorf summarise a two- step approach for the examination of R. 101 RoP: first, to decide whether it is appropriate to allow interpretation during the oral hearing, and second, to decide whether it is appropriate that the costs of such interpretation shall become cost of the proceedings (cf. CFI, LD The Hague, UPC_CFI_195/2024, procedural order of 25 June 2024, para 5; CFI LD Düsseldorf, UPC_CFI_355/2023, procedural order of 29 November 2024). The LD Mannheim supports this approach. In the first place the simultaneous interpretation in the present highly complex substance matter appears to be appropriate to ascertain that the representatives of Claimant are in a position to fully understand the exchange during the oral hearing (see CFI Düsseldorf in the parallel case as cited above). Still it does not seem appropriate that the cost of the simultaneous interpretation should become a part of the cost of the proceedings. Japanese is neither an official language of the Contracting Member States nor an official or designated language of the Local Division Mannheim, where the infringement action was filed in English. The UPC cannot generally be expected to provide interpretation into all languages (see CFI, Local Division The Hague and Düsseldorf cited above). Yet, another argument against making the costs incurred cost of the proceedings is that the Claimant's representatives are able to understand and follow the oral hearing in English as such. They simply put forward that they are unable to follow the oral hearing to a necessary degree of detail without interrupting to ask questions or using additional translation aids. The mere desire to better understand the proceedings in real time, as if they were being conducted in Japanese, does not justify a request for the Court to provide simultaneous interpretation making the costs incurred cost of the proceedings. That is all the more true considering that these arrangements are associated with great organisational effect for the sub-registry. In case of need the oral hearing may be interrupted for a reasonable time so as to align between Claimant and its representatives. But the Claimant is free to use an interpreter at his own expense (see R. 109.4 RoP), who may, if necessary, use the simultaneous interpretation equipment available in the court room. Due to the multiple requests in this regard in preparation of the oral hearing it has to be pointed out that the technical environment as provided is to be used and no further improvement upon demand of the interpretators may be allowed as the general set-up as provided by the hosting member state has proofed to be adequate, sufficient and reliable in the past in other proceedings. ORDER The Claimant may, at its own expense, engage an interpreter who may, if necessary, use the equipment available in the courtroom for simultaneous interpretation. If the Claimant wishes to make use of this possibility, it shall inform the sub-registry of the Local Division Mannheim in due time before the oral hearing. The request is dismissed in all other respects Issued in Mannheim on 30 January 2025 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Tochtermann Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur

ORD_5108/2025

Mannheim Local Division UPC_CFI_365/2023

Order

of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 30 January 2025 concerning EP 3 511 174

CLAIMANT:

FUJIFILM Corporation, 26-30, Nishiazabu 2-chome, Minato-ku,Tokyo 106-8620, Japan,

represented by:

Tobias Hahn, HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, Steinstraße 20, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany

electronic address for service:

tobias.hahn@hoyngrokh.com

DEFENDANT:

1. Kodak GmbH, Kesselstraße 19, 70327 Stuttgart,

represented by:

Elena Hennecke, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater PartG mbB, Feldmühleplatz 1, 40545 Düsseldorf, Germany

electronic address for service:

elena.hennecke@freshfields.com

2. Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kesselstraße 19, 70327 Stuttgart,

represented by:

Elena Hennecke, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater PartG mbB, Maximiliansplatz 13, 80333 Munich, Germany

electronic address for service:

elena.hennecke@freshfields.com

3. Kodak Holding GmbH, Kesselstraße 19, 70327 Stuttgart,

represented by:

Elena Hennecke, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater PartG mbB, Maximiliansplatz 13, 80333 Munich, Germany

electronic address for service:

elena.hennecke@freshfields.com

PATENT AT ISSUE:

European patent EP3 511 174

PANEL/DIVISION:

Panel of the Local Division in Mannheim

DECIDING JUDGES:

This order was issued by Judge Prof. Dr. Tochtermann acting as presiding judge and judgerapporteur.

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English

SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Rule 109.1 RoP - Request for simultaneous interpretation

SUMMARY OF FACTS :

The Claimant is a company based in Japan. It brought an infringement action against the three Defendants, all based in Germany, and chose English as the language of the proceedings. The Claimant filed a request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese at the oral hearing for its attending representatives who do not have the sufficient language skills to follow the course of the oral hearing in English with the necessary level of detail. According to the Claimant, simultaneous interpretation is necessary to enable the Claimant to make use of its procedural rights for reasons of the fair trial principle and equality of arms in the proceedings. The Defendants object to the request only in respect of Rule 109.1 RoP and to the translation costs becoming costs of the proceedings.

PARTIES´ REQUESTS:

The Claimant requests (App 1460/2025), the simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral proceedings on February 13 and 14, 2025.

The Defendants request (App 3424/2025), to reject the Claimant´s request for simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral proceedings according to R. 109.1 RoP.

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER:

Pursuant to Art. 51(2) UPCA, any division of the Court of First Instance shall, at the request of a party and to the extent appropriate, provide interpretation to assist that party in oral proceedings. This general principle is further specified in R. 109.2 (1) RoP to the effect that the JudgeRapporteur shall decide, upon a timely request pursuant to R. 109.1 RoP, whether and to what extent simultaneous interpretation is appropriate. If he considers it appropriate, he shall instruct the Registry to make all necessary arrangements. The costs of simultaneous interpretation in such a case shall be included in the costs of the proceedings, R. 150 RoP. If the Judge-Rapporteur refuses the request for simultaneous interpretation, a party may, at its own expense, engage a simultaneous interpreter and request that arrangements for simultaneous interpretation be made, as far as is practically possible, at its own expense (Rule 109.2 (2) RoP in conjunction with Rule 109.4 of the RoP; cf. CFI, LD Düsseldorf, UPC_CFI_363/2023, procedural order of 12 July 2024). If a party avails itself of this possibility, the costs incurred shall not be regarded as costs of the proceedings within the meaning of the last sentence of Rule 109.5 RoP; they shall be borne solely by the party instructing the interpreter. LD The Hague and Düsseldorf summarise a two-

step approach for the examination of R. 101 RoP: first, to decide whether it is appropriate to allow interpretation during the oral hearing, and second, to decide whether it is appropriate that the costs of such interpretation shall become cost of the proceedings (cf. CFI, LD The Hague, UPC_CFI_195/2024, procedural order of 25 June 2024, para 5; CFI LD Düsseldorf, UPC_CFI_355/2023, procedural order of 29 November 2024). The LD Mannheim supports this approach.

In the first place the simultaneous interpretation in the present highly complex substance matter appears to be appropriate to ascertain that the representatives of Claimant are in a position to fully understand the exchange during the oral hearing (see CFI Düsseldorf in the parallel case as cited above).

Still it does not seem appropriate that the cost of the simultaneous interpretation should become a part of the cost of the proceedings. Japanese is neither an official language of the Contracting Member States nor an official or designated language of the Local Division Mannheim, where the infringement action was filed in English. The UPC cannot generally be expected to provide interpretation into all languages (see CFI, Local Division The Hague and Düsseldorf cited above). Yet, another argument against making the costs incurred cost of the proceedings is that the Claimant's representatives are able to understand and follow the oral hearing in English as such. They simply put forward that they are unable to follow the oral hearing to a necessary degree of detail without interrupting to ask questions or using additional translation aids. The mere desire to better understand the proceedings in real time, as if they were being conducted in Japanese, does not justify a request for the Court to provide simultaneous interpretation making the costs incurred cost of the proceedings. That is all the more true considering that these arrangements are associated with great organisational effect for the sub-registry. In case of need the oral hearing may be interrupted for a reasonable time so as to align between Claimant and its representatives.

But the Claimant is free to use an interpreter at his own expense (see R. 109.4 RoP), who may, if necessary, use the simultaneous interpretation equipment available in the court room. Due to the multiple requests in this regard in preparation of the oral hearing it has to be pointed out that the technical environment as provided is to be used and no further improvement upon demand of the interpretators may be allowed as the general set-up as provided by the hosting member state has proofed to be adequate, sufficient and reliable in the past in other proceedings.

ORDER

1. The Claimant may, at its own expense, engage an interpreter who may, if necessary, use the equipment available in the courtroom for simultaneous interpretation.
1. If the Claimant wishes to make use of this possibility, it shall inform the sub-registry of the Local Division Mannheim in due time before the oral hearing.
1. The request is dismissed in all other respects

Issued in Mannheim on 30 January 2025

NAMES AND SIGNATURES

Tochtermann Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur