Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 21 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 August 2026 (UPC_CFI_466/2025 and UPC_CFI_869/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division, in Dai Nippon Printing’s infringement action on EP 3 805 415 against Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals, allowed the claimant to engage, at its own cost, interpreters from German into Japanese for the oral hearing of 17 September 2026, and allowed its Japanese staff and attorneys to attend by video conference. It refused, however, to treat the interpretation costs as costs of the proceedings.

Question

Must the Court order simultaneous interpretation requested by a party whose management and foreign attorneys do not speak the language of proceedings, so that its cost becomes a cost of the proceedings?

Decision

The request is admissible under Rule 109.1 RoP (paragraph 10). The division applied a two-stage test: is interpretation appropriate, and should its costs be costs of the proceedings (paragraphs 11 and 12)? Interpretation is appropriate to allow active participation, and the claimant may engage its own interpreters (paragraphs 13 and 14). But the language burden is no greater than is usual before a multilingual international court: its German-speaking representatives protect its interests, and the wish of its foreign attorneys to attend does not justify court-ordered interpretation at the expense of the proceedings (paragraphs 15 and 16). Attendance by video conference is allowed under Rule 112.3 RoP (paragraph 17).

Key points for practice

• A foreign party represented by lawyers fluent in the language of proceedings will generally bear the cost of interpretation itself, without recovering it as costs (paragraphs 15 and 16).

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 and 150

Case law cited

Szymon 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), Dolby v Beko, Düsseldorf Local Division, 15 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_135/2024), 10x Genomics v Curio, Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_463/2023), Seoul Viosys v expert, Düsseldorf Local Division, 12 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_363/2023), CEAD v BEGO, Paris Central Division, 10 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_367/2023), Scandit v Hand Held, Court of Appeal, 11 December 2024 (UPC_CoA_520/2024)

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.