Week 13, 2026 - Claim Interpretation , Settlement Fever & The Vanishing Refund

This week, Prof. Willem Hoyng dives into a flurry of activity at the UPC, where the "doorstep of the court" is proving to be a powerful catalyst for settlements. We explore why the Court of Appeal is taking a strict line on claim interpretation—reminding patent attorneys that listing too many "advantages" in a patent can come back to haunt you during infringement proceedings. We also cover the President’s latest ruling on changing the language of proceedings and why fighting "hopeless" procedural battles in the Paris Central Division is a wasted effort.⚖️ The Interpretation Trap: The Court of Appeal reverses a Mannheim injunction, proving that the description’s stated "objects of the invention" can be used to narrow the scope of broad claim language. (CoA, NUC v Hurom)🌍 Language Shifts: The President of the CFI clarifies that if you sue a non-German defendant using an English-language patent, you should expect the proceedings to flip to English. (CFI President, HyGear v Topsoe)🤝 The Settlement Wave: A breakdown of multiple settlements (Roche, Amgen, IMI, and others) and the Court’s evolving stance on whether you get your court fees back once the written bridge is crossed.🛡️ Confidentiality & Prior Use: The Paris Central Division rules that contractors cleaning an oven doesn't constitute "public use" if an implied duty of secrecy exists. (CD Paris, Veolia v Tiru)🏢 Group Competence: Why being part of the same corporate group is enough to establish a "commercial relationship" for jurisdictional purposes in Paris. (LD Paris, Valeo v Bosch)🚫 Rehearing Reality: A reminder that a "rehearing" is not a second appeal and will only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances. (CoA, Sanofi v Amgen)📖 Read the full written analysis here: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-13-2026Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated podcast. Thecommentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views and does not constitutelegal advice.