VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE (CoA, 3 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 3 April 2026, the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal dismisses the request for simultaneous French/English interpretation made by the Bosch companies, respondents in Valeo Systèmes d’essuyage’s joined appeals (UPC_CoA_4/2026 and UPC_CoA_13/2026) against the orders of the Paris Central Division referring the infringement action on EP 2 671 766 to the Düsseldorf Local Division in English. After consulting the President of the chamber, he rules that the hearing of 27 April 2026 will be held in English, while French remains the language of the appeal proceedings. The order confirms that a representative’s limited spoken command of the language of proceedings does not justify interpretation.

Question

Should simultaneous interpretation be ordered where a party’s representative understands the language of proceedings but does not speak it fluently and, if not, in which language should the hearing be held?

Decision

The request is admissible but dismissed (paragraph 10). The judge-rapporteur assesses whether interpretation is appropriate in the light of the principles of efficiency and fairness in the Preamble (paragraphs 11 and 12). A representative’s inadequate command of the language of proceedings is not a sufficient justification (paragraph 13), since parties must be represented by a professional with a good knowledge of that language (Art. 48 UPCA and Rule 8.1, paragraph 14). As the Court, the parties and their representatives all have a good spoken command of French and English, interpretation would offer no advantage over a hearing in English (paragraph 15). The hearing will therefore be held in English, the language set at first instance by the contested orders, without prejudice to the decision on that language and without changing the language of the appeal (paragraph 16).

Key points for practice

• A party cannot obtain simultaneous interpretation to compensate for its own representative’s limited spoken command of the language (paragraphs 13 and 14).
• Where everyone involved is comfortable in both languages, the Court may prefer a hearing in a single language other than the language of the appeal proceedings (paragraphs 15 and 16).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 48

Rules of Procedure

Preamble and Rules 8.1, 19 and 109

Case law cited

Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 21 August 2025, Ocado, Court of Appeal, 8 February 2024.

Related decisions

• Valeo v Bosch, 22 June 2026, Court of Appeal order deciding the appeals.
• Valeo v Bosch, 11 February 2026, order on the admissibility of appeal UPC_CoA_4/2026.

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.