CEAD v BEGO Medical (CFI, 10 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 10 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_367/2023, ACT_580198/2023, ORD_24708/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division refused to order simultaneous interpretation as part of the procedural costs at the request of CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V., claimants in a revocation action against BEGO Medical’s EP 2 681 034 conducted in German. He only allowed their Dutch-speaking counsel to plead in English or Dutch at the interim conference and the oral hearing, with interpretation into German arranged and paid for by the claimants.

Question

Should simultaneous interpretation be ordered as part of the procedural costs (Rule 109.1 RoP) where one of a party’s representatives and its managing directors do not speak the language of the proceedings, while other German-speaking representatives plead on its behalf?

Decision

Interpretation is granted only to the extent it appears appropriate to assist a party at the hearing, the judge-rapporteur deciding by reference to proportionality and a fair balance of interests (paragraphs 6 to 11). Three German-speaking representatives have pleaded in German without apparent difficulty. One member of a multilingual team not speaking German is irrelevant, by analogy with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning on change of language, as otherwise a party could inflate costs through its choice of team (paragraphs 15 to 20). The directors’ wish to follow the hearing in another language does not justify the measure either, and the right to be heard is not infringed, since a revocation claimant is not under the time pressure facing an infringement defendant (paragraphs 21 and 22). The request under the second sentence of Rule 109.2 RoP is granted at the claimants’ expense (paragraphs 23 to 27).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party that builds a multilingual team cannot pass the cost of interpretation on to the proceedings, it can, however, obtain leave to plead in another language by arranging and paying for the interpreter itself.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 49(1), 49(6) and 51(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 109.1, 109.2, 109.5, 150 and 333

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 17 April 2024, UPC_CoA_101/2024 (APL_12116/2024), Curio Bioscience and 10x Genomics, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 March 2024 (App_14943/2024, UPC_CFI_463/2023)

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.