F. Hoffman-La Roche v Tandem Diabetes Care (CFI, 14 March 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 14 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_504/2023, ACT_597323/2023, CC_20972/2024 and CC_21542/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division (Schumacher) allowed the defendants to F. Hoffman-La Roche and Roche Diabetes Care’s infringement action on EP 1 970 677, Tandem Diabetes Care among them, to engage at their own expense an interpreter into English for the oral hearing of 9 April 2025, but refused to order simultaneous interpretation whose cost would form part of the costs of the proceedings.

Question

Should simultaneous interpretation of the hearing, sought because some of the defendants’ attendees do not master German, be ordered by the Court under Art. 51(2) UPCA, with its cost included in the costs of the proceedings?

Decision

The judge applied the two-stage test developed by the Hague Local Division and followed in Düsseldorf: is interpretation appropriate, and should its cost then become part of the costs of the proceedings (Rules 109 and 150). The first limb was met, since some representatives understood no German, or not enough to take an active part in a complex technical and legal hearing. The defendants may therefore engage an interpreter at their own expense (Rule 109.5), informing the Registry at least two weeks before the hearing. The second was not: the language of proceedings burdens them no more than is usual before a multilingual international court, their interests are protected by German-speaking counsel, the interest of other attendees does not suffice and the arrangements would weigh on the Registry.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party whose representatives command the language of proceedings should expect to bear the cost of interpretation for its other attendees itself.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 51(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 109 and 150

Case law cited

Szymon Spyra v Amycel, Hague Local Division, 25 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_195/2024), Fujifilm v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 29 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_355/2023), 10x Genomics v Curio, Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_463/2023), Seoul Viosys, Düsseldorf Local Division, 12 July 2024, CEAD v BEGO, Paris Central Division, 10 May 2024, Scandit v Hand Held, 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.