Week 5, 2026 - No "External Eyes Only" & Appeal Blunders

Our digital hosts discuss Prof. Willem Hoyng’s review of this week’s decisions, identifying critical rulings on confidentiality and appeal procedures.TOP 3 TAKEAWAYS:🔹 CONFIDENTIALITY: NO "EXTERNAL EYES ONLY" (Sun v Vivo; Ericsson v Asustek - CoA)The Court of Appeal confirmed that the UPC does not accept "External Eyes Only" regimes.The Rule: At least one natural person from a party (e.g., an employee) must be granted access to confidential information to ensure a fair trial. The risk to trade secrets can be mitigated by barring that employee from licensing negotiations, but they cannot be excluded entirely.🔹 PROCEDURAL ERRORS ON APPEAL (Valeo v Bosch - CoA)In a dispute over the Central Division's competence, Valeo appealed under the wrong rule (seeking leave to appeal instead of appealing directly).The Warning: Prof. Hoyng warns that practitioners must strictly distinguish between R. 220.1 (direct appeal) and R. 220.2 (leave required) to avoid inadmissibility risks.🔹 PARALLEL REVOCATION STRATEGY (Nanoval v ALD - Paris CD)The Court refused to stay a revocation action brought by a parent company, even though its subsidiary had already filed a counterclaim for revocation in Munich.Prof. Hoyng’s Critique: While legally distinct entities, allowing a parent company to run parallel proceedings creates financial hardship for SMEs. He argues this strategy creates unnecessary barriers and contradicts the "proper administration of justice."📖 READ THE FULL ANALYSIS:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-05-2026Disclaimer: AI generated podcast. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.#UPCUnfiltered #UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #WillemHoyng #IPLaw #LegalStrategy