Name not displayed for GDPR reasons. Represented by Michal PRZYLUSKI v Amycel (CoA, 3 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 3 September 2026 (UPC_CoA_935/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal dismissed the request for English-Polish interpretation under Art. 51(2) UPCA made by the appellant, a natural person whose name is not published, who was the defendant in Amycel’s infringement action (EP 1 993 350) decided by default by The Hague Local Division. Being a natural person attending in person and having limited English is not enough where the party is duly represented. The appellant may use an interpreter of his choice at his own expense without permission.

Question

May a represented natural person who has difficulty with the language of proceedings ask the Court to arrange interpretation at the hearing?

Decision

Whether the request was late, having been filed less than one month before the hearing of 23 September 2026 (Rule 109.1 RoP), was left open (paragraphs 5 to 7). Whether interpretation is appropriate is assessed case by case, weighing the parties’ legitimate interests and the efficiency of the proceedings (paragraphs 9 to 11). The situation differs from Barco v Yealink, where attendance by employees was voluntary (paragraph 12). Being a natural person does not in itself make interpretation appropriate: the appellant is represented and it was not claimed that his representative could not act in English, the wish to communicate better with the representative is not sufficient (paragraphs 13 to 18). The alternative request falls under Rule 109.4 RoP, which requires no permission. The appellant must inform the Registry by 9 September 2026 (paragraphs 19 to 22).

Key points for practice

• Court-arranged interpretation requires particular circumstances beyond a represented party’s limited command of the language.
• Practical point: a party wishing to use an interpreter at its own expense need only inform the Registry within the time limit set.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 48 and 51(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.1, 9.3, 109.1, 109.2 and 109.4

Case law cited

Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 21 August 2025, Valeo v Bosch, Court of Appeal, 3 April 2026, Scandit v Hand Held Products, Court of Appeal, 11 December 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.