FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 30 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 30 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023, EP 3 511 174), the presiding judge of the Mannheim Local Division, Judge Tochtermann, acting as judge-rapporteur, refused to treat as costs of the proceedings the simultaneous English to Japanese interpretation requested by FUJIFILM for its Japanese-speaking representatives at the hearing of 13 and 14 February 2025 against three Kodak companies. FUJIFILM may instead engage an interpreter at its own expense, using the courtroom equipment. The order, without numbered paragraphs, clarifies how the appropriateness of interpretation relates to who bears its cost.

Question

Can simultaneous interpretation into a third language be arranged by the Court and its cost included in the costs of the proceedings?

Decision

The judge-rapporteur applied a two-step test under Art. 51(2) UPCA and Rule 109: is interpretation appropriate, and, if so, should its cost be a cost of the proceedings? Interpretation was appropriate in principle, given the highly complex subject matter. Its cost, however, was not to be borne as costs of the proceedings: Japanese is neither an official nor a designated language of the Contracting Member States or of the division, the representatives can follow the hearing in English, and the wish to follow it in real time is not enough, given the burden on the sub-registry. The party may engage its own interpreter at its own expense under Rule 109.4.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party whose team does not master the language of the proceedings must arrange and pay for interpretation itself, informing the sub-registry in advance if it wishes to use the equipment.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 51(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 101, 109 and 150

Case law cited

The Hague Local Division, 25 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_195/2024), Düsseldorf Local Division, 12 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_363/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, 29 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_355/2023)

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.