Aesculap v Shanghai International (Eur) (CFI, 10 June 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 10 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_213/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, in Aesculap’s application for provisional measures against Shanghai International (Europe) based on EP 2 892 442, allowed the defendant to arrange simultaneous interpretation of the German-language hearing at its own expense, but refused to treat it as costs of the proceedings and dismissed the request for its representatives to attend by videoconference.

Question

Should the costs of simultaneous interpretation requested late by a German company that chose a representative who does not speak German be included in the costs of the proceedings?

Decision

Following the two-stage test adopted by The Hague and Düsseldorf divisions, the judge allowed interpretation, which was essential for the representatives who do not speak German to take part in the hearing, but at the defendant’s expense (Rule 109.4 RoP). The request, made on 3 June 2025, missed the one-month time limit in Rule 109.1 RoP, which applies by analogy to provisional measures, although the defendant had been told on 24 April 2025 that the proceedings were in German. Above all, as a company based in Hamburg it could have instructed a German-speaking representative: that deliberate choice justifies it bearing the cost whatever the outcome.

The unreasoned request for videoconference attendance (Rule 112.3(a) RoP) was dismissed despite the applicant’s consent. Further representatives may nonetheless join remotely if the main ones attend in person.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a request for interpretation must be made at least one month before the hearing, including in summary proceedings, a party that instructs counsel without command of the language of proceedings bears the cost whatever the outcome.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 51(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 109.1, 109.2, 109.4, 109.5, 112.3(a), 150 and 209.1(a)

Case law cited

Spyra v Amycel, The Hague Local Division, 25 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_195/2024), Fujifilm v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 29 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_355/2023), F. Hoffmann-La Roche v Tandem, Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_504/2023)

Related decisions

• Aesculap v Shanghai International, 10 July 2025, order for provisional measures made after the hearing.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.