Opens in a new tab

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 29 December 2025)

Date29 December 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_351/2024;UPC_CFI_595/2024
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_351/2024(IA)and · UPC_CFI_595/2024(CC)
PartiesCanon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Katun Germany GmbH a.o.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 29 December 2025, made in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_351/2024 and UPC_CFI_595/2024, the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on Canon Kabushiki Kaisha’s request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese at the oral hearing in its action against Katun Germany and others (EP 3 686 683). Canon may engage its own interpreter, at its own expense, using the courtroom equipment. The request was otherwise dismissed. The order applies a two-stage test separating whether interpretation is appropriate from who bears its cost.

Question

Should the Court organise simultaneous interpretation into Japanese, with its cost becoming costs of the proceedings under Rule 109.5?

Decision

The request, lodged within the one-month period of Rule 109.1, was admissible (paragraph 7). Interpretation was appropriate, as it allows company representatives who are not proficient in English to follow the hearing (paragraph 11). Its cost, however, should not become costs of the proceedings: Japanese is neither an official language of a Contracting Member State nor a language of the division, Canon’s interests are represented by English-speaking lawyers, the representatives’ attendance is voluntary and interpretation organised by the Registry would require considerable effort (paragraph 12).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 51(2)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 109.1, 109.2, 109.4, 109.5 and 150
Case law cited
Spyra v Amycel, The Hague Local Division, 25 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_195/2024), Fujifilm v Kodak, 29 November 2024, CEAD v BEGO, 10 May 2024, Scandit v Hand Held Products, Court of Appeal, 11 December 2024, Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 21 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_317/2025)

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CFI_351/2024 official number
  • UPC_CFI_595/2024 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 20 November 2025 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 20 November 2025) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_351/2024, UPC_CFI_595/2024

    L'avis préliminaire de l'OEB et son résumé sont admis. L'écriture sur un nouvel achat test est refusée et la procédure écrite est close.

  2. 10 December 2025 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 10 December 2025) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_351/2024, UPC_CFI_595/2024

    Les parties doivent produire avant le 18 décembre 2025 les traductions anglaises de toutes leurs pièces et une estimation provisoire des frais. La modification de la demande et la valeur du litige sont réservées à la formation.

  3. 29 December 2025 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 29 December 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_351/2024, UPC_CFI_595/2024
  4. 11 February 2026 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 11 February 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_351/2024, UPC_CFI_595/2024

    La division locale de Düsseldorf rejette la demande reconventionnelle en nullité, retient la contrefaçon d'EP 3 686 683 par les bouteilles de toner Katun et ordonne injonction, rappel, destruction, provision de 100 000 euros et publication, y compris sur le site des défenderesses.

  5. 30 April 2026 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_351/2024, 30 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_351/2024

    La demande de confidentialité présentée après la décision au fond est rejetée : elle devait être faite pendant l'instance au fond, et la limitation d'usage demandée ne peut modifier le dispositif au stade de l'exécution.

  6. 30 April 2026 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_595/2024, 30 April 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_595/2024

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Canon peut recourir à son propre interprète vers le japonais, à ses frais et avec l'équipement de la salle, mais la demande d'interprétation organisée par la juridiction et intégrée aux frais de l'instance est rejetée.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 686 683Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 11 February 2026) · Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_351/2024, 30 Apri · Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 20 November 2025) · Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v General Plastic Industrial (CFI, 12 June 2025		not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.