Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology (CoA, 21 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 August 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal refuses Yealink’s request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Mandarin Chinese at the hearing of 22 September 2025 in the appeal and cross-appeal (UPC_CoA_317/2025 and UPC_CoA_376/2025) against the provisional measures order of the Brussels Local Division of 21 March 2025 (EP 3 732 827, Barco v Yealink). The order clarifies when interpretation is available before the UPC and who bears its cost.

Question

May a party based in a country whose language is not the language of the proceedings obtain simultaneous interpretation arranged by the Court, or at its own initial cost but recoverable as costs of the proceedings?

Decision

The request is admissible but unfounded (paragraphs 5 and 10). Absent the hearing of witnesses or experts in another language, it must be justified by the requesting party (paragraph 13). Being based in a non-English-speaking country is generally not enough, since the party is represented by a lawyer or patent attorney familiar with the language of the proceedings (paragraph 14), attendance of company officials at the hearing is voluntary (paragraph 15). Rule 109.2 RoP (interpretation arranged by the Court, cost recoverable as costs of the proceedings) is distinct from Rule 109.4 RoP (interpreter engaged by the party, at its sole expense) (paragraphs 19 and 20). The alternative request is rejected for the same reasons (paragraph 21), Yealink remains free to engage its own interpreter by notifying the Registry two weeks before the hearing (paragraph 16).

Key points for practice

• Court-arranged simultaneous interpretation requires specific justification, which neither the party’s domicile nor the difficulties of its employees provide (paragraphs 14 and 15).
• An interpreter engaged by a party under Rule 109.4 RoP is at that party’s sole expense (paragraph 20).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 48 and Arts. 49 to 51, in particular Art. 51(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.1, 109, 112.6, 150, 177.2(f) and 270 et seq.

Case law cited

Ocado, Court of Appeal, 8 February 2024, Scandit v Hand Held Products, Court of Appeal, 11 December 2024, CJEU, 8 May 2008, Weiss und Partner, C-14/07.

Related decisions

• Yealink v Barco, 21 March 2025, provisional measures order of the Brussels Local Division under appeal.
• Barco v Yealink, 28 November 2025, Court of Appeal decision on the appeal.

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.