Willem Hoyng's UPC Unfiltered (AI) Podcast

This week, our AI hosts break down Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on a wide range of new decisions from the Unified Patent Court, with a clear focus on procedural discipline, case management, and the practical realities of UPC litigation.In this episode, we cover:⚖️ PI Proceedings & Claim Interpretation: A detailed look at Stratasys v Bambulab, where the Hague Local Division refused a PI based on a narrow interpretation rooted in prosecution history and enforced strict procedural discipline.📄 Suspensive Effect & Evidence Production: The Court of Appeal in Polytechnik v Dall confirms that suspensive effect is exceptional and reinforces the importance of early confidentiality planning in disclosure orders.🧩 Auxiliary Requests & Revocation Strategy: Teleflex v Speedcare raises important questions about the limits of auxiliary request practice at the UPC and the risks of importing EPO-style approaches into litigation.⏱️ Deadlines, Mistakes & Procedural Fairness: In Optopol v Topcon, the Court of Appeal confirms that genuine procedural errors can be corrected, but also underlines the importance of diligence and proportionality.🛠️ Judge-Rapporteur & Case Management: Dai Nippon v Zapp and Cup&Cino v Alpina illustrate the central role of the Judge-Rapporteur in maintaining procedural order - and what happens when parties fail to follow the Rules.💰 Security for Costs & Litigation Reality: In Suinno v Microsoft and Adobe v Keeex, the Court of Appeal clarifies both the purpose of security for costs and the strict approach to appeal admissibility and deadlines.🔍 Equivalence & Substantive Patent Law: AIM Sport v TGI provides insight into the UPC’s evolving approach to equivalence, highlighting ongoing uncertainty and debate around the appropriate legal test.📖 Read the full written analysis here: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-18-2026🔍 Explore the case law and Unfiltered Commentary on our UPC Intelligence Platform: https://upcintelligence.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/ Disclaimer: This post and the podcast are AI-generated. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.

This week, our AI hosts unpack Prof. Willem Hoyng’s analysis of the latest UPC decisions, exposing procedural excesses, inefficiencies in cost proceedings, and escalating cross-border tensions in SEP litigation.In this episode, we cover:⚖️ Procedural Discipline Under Pressure: When 150+ invalidity attacks, late filings, and massive expert reports push the Milan Local Division to its limits in Prinoth v Xelom.💸 The Cost Proceedings Dilemma: Why the Court of Appeal in Guardant v Sophia had to step in after a €600,000 cost order. 🌏 Global SEP Tug-of-War: The Mannheim Local Division takes a firm stance against anti-suit tactics in Nokia v Geely, raising big questions about jurisdictional overreach and international comity. 🌐 Jurisdiction & Fragmentation: In Dainese v Alpinestars, the Milan Local Division navigates Article 8(1) Brussels Regulation - while leaving key questions on cross-border infringement unanswered. 🧪 Revocation & Auxiliary Requests: A warning from the Paris Central Division in Huntsman v BASF - if you don’t properly argue your auxiliary requests, the Court won’t do it for you. 🏛️ Forum Shopping & UPC Strategy: The Düsseldorf Local Division in Quantificare v Canfield shows how national decisions can shape UPC outcomes - and why defendants must think carefully about jurisdiction challenges. 🔐 Security for Costs in SEP Cases: The Munich Local Division in Advanced Standard v Xiaomi confirms that bank guarantees for FRAND royalties won’t shield claimants from cost security obligations. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-17-2026🔍 Explore the case law and Unfiltered Commentary on our UPC Intelligence Platform: https://upcintelligence.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/Disclaimer: This post and the podcast are AI-generated. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views

This week, our AI hosts break down Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on 10 new decisions from the Unified Patent Court. We are diving deep into the Court's reasoning on public access to pleadings, the jurisdictional limits of suing non-EU entities, and the evolving standards for Preliminary Injunctions and indirect infringement.In this episode, we cover:🌍 International Jurisdiction & the UK: Why the Paris Local Division found jurisdiction over Chinese entities for UK acts but drew a firm line at suing a UK-only company in BMS v BYD.🎓 "Training Purposes" as a Golden Ticket: How a law firm used the "training" justification to gain full access to redacted pleadings in a settled case between Huawei and MediaTek. ⚖️ The Indirect Infringement Debate: A deep dive into the Düsseldorf Local Division’s decision in Brita v Wessper, where filter cartridges were deemed "essential elements," sparking a debate on double territoriality and consumer rights. 🛡️ PI Resilience and Claim Interpretation: How the Court of Appeal reversed a Hague decision in Abbott v Sinocare, warning against reading limitations into claims that aren't supported by the wording or description. 📉 SME Financial Realities: Why the Court of Appeal refused suspensive effect for an SME in La Siddhi v Athena, reminding litigants that a lack of funding for security for costs isn't a "get out of jail free" card. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-16-2026🔍 Explore the case law and Unfiltered Commentary on our UPC Intelligence Platform: https://upcintelligence.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/Disclaimer: This post and the podcast are AI-generated. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.

This week, our AI hosts break down Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on 10 new decisions from the Unified Patent Court. We are diving deep into the Court's reasoning on cross-border PI jurisdiction, the strict rules around auxiliary requests, and the financial realities of the UPC's costs regime.In this episode, we cover:🌍 Cross-Border PIs & International Comity: Why the Hamburg Local Division granted a PI across the UPC and Spain, but drew the line at a UK importer in Dyson v Dreame.💰 Security for Costs on Appeal: The Court of Appeal’s new roadmap in Suinno v Microsoft, including a €600,000 order and strict limits on securing unpaid first-instance judgments.🧩 Total Patent Revocation: A masterclass in what not to do with auxiliary requests, straight from the Milan Central Division's 10-month revocation in Fisher v Flexicare.🔧 Survival by Amendment: How a late auxiliary request saved a patent from total invalidation in biolitec v Light Guide Optics, and why the Munich Local Division had to call in a court expert.📖 Read the full written analysis here: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-15-2026 🔍 Explore the case law and Unfiltered Commentary on our UPC Intelligence Platform: https://upcintelligence.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/Disclaimer: This post and the podcast are AI-generated. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.

Prof. Willem Hoyng comments on 15 new UPC decisions. The Court of Appeal takes centre stage this week with major rulings on preliminary injunctions, costs, courtroom transcripts, language requirements, and jurisdiction.In this episode:— Can you file auxiliary requests in PI proceedings? The Court of Appeal says yes — and explains when and how (Onward v Niche).— Rematec won on appeal, then filed their cost application at the wrong court on the last day of the deadline. A costly mistake that practitioners need to avoid (Rematec v Europe Forestry).— Private stenographers are allowed at oral hearings — and transcripts can be used in foreign proceedings under certain conditions (Amazon v Interdigital).— Your representative doesn't speak the language of the proceedings? That's your problem, not the Court's (Valeo v Robert Bosch).— What does "urgency" really mean in PI cases? The Court of Appeal sets a high bar for defendants trying to argue the patentee waited too long (Sinocare v Abbott).— Prof. Hoyng calls out unnecessary time-wasting: fighting obvious clerical errors and planning live tire-cutting demonstrations in court (Illumina v Element; Pirelli v Sichuan).Read the full written analysis: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-14-2026 Disclaimer: AI-generated podcast. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng's personal views.

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.

This week, Prof. Willem Hoyng breaks down the 'hot potato' of file wrapper estoppel and why the UPC is still navigating how to use prosecution history in claim interpretation. We also explore the 'attacked embodiment' and how injunctions can reach unknown future products , the high bar for ex parte exhibition raids , and why being an 'unwilling licensee' in SEP negotiations is a shortcut to an injunction.🖼️ Exhibition Injunctions: Preliminary injunction granted ex parte at EuroShop; delivery of infringing modules to a bailiff for safekeeping. (LD Düsseldorf, beMatrix v Yaham)⚖️ Infringement & Future Products: How a claimant can seek an injunction covering unknown future products that essentially correspond to the technical features of the attacked embodiment. (LD Munich, NST v Qualcomm)📜 The File Wrapper Dilemma: Using statements from patent prosecution as evidence of how a skilled person interprets claim terms, despite the UPC's ongoing struggle with the role of the file wrapper. (LD Munich, BFexa QC v NVIDIA)🛡️ Security for Costs: Legitimate concerns over an SME's financial status lead to a €75,000 security order, even if the claimant is not based in the EU. (CD Milan, La Siddhi v Athena)🏹 Devoid of Purpose: Why a revocation action is disposed of after an EPO revocation, and the limits of seeking declarations regarding divisional patents. (CD Milan, Neurocrine v Spruce)📡 SEP & FRAND Tactics: Injunction granted against an 'unwilling' implementer who provided evasive answers to licensing offers and failed to make a counteroffer. (LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v Beko)🔍 Ex Parte Scrutiny: The Court of Appeal rejects an appeal regarding an ex parte inspection order where the applicant provided ambiguous or incomplete information to the Court. (CoA, Ecovacs v Roborock)🏗️ Corrective Measures: A debate on whether the destruction of promotional materials should be ordered alongside the destruction of infringing products. (LD Düsseldorf, CUP&CINO v ALPINA)📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-12-2026⁠⁠⁠Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated podcast. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views and does not constitute legal advice.

This week, Prof. Willem Hoyng breaks down why a damage claim was entirely dismissed under strict German law. We also uncover the strategic trap of UPC preliminary injunctions during settlements, and why you must explicitly plead Article 71b(3) for non-EU jurisdiction.Cases and topics discussed in this episode:💶 Damages under National Law : German law applied to a damage claim; claim dismissed for lack of evidence (LD Hamburg, Fives v Reel).🤝 Settlement Strategy: Why withdrawing a PI application on appeal is often better than keeping it alive (CoA, Roche v Menarini).🌐 Cross-Border Reach: Jurisdiction outside the UPC territory rejected against non-EU defendants (CoA, Adobe c.s. v Keeex).⏳ Error Correction & Collegiality: Retroactive extension to file upheld after discretionary review (CoA, Align v Angelalign).🌍 Language Battles: Request to switch from English to Italian dismissed (LD Milan, KeyMed v PR Medical).🔓 Confidentiality Traps: Public access granted, but only for specified documents (LD Lisbon, Gowling-Zentiva v Boehringer).📄 Procedural Strictness: Further pleadings refused under Rule 36 (LD Düsseldorf, Hologic v Siemens).📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-11-2026⁠Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated podcast. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views and does not constitute legal advice.

In this week's episode of the UPC Unfiltered AI Podcast, our digital hosts unpack Prof. Willem Hoyng’s analysis of 10 new decisions for HRM. The Unified Patent Court is moving incredibly fast, and this week brings massive shifts in European patent litigation strategy.We break down the hard legal facts of the rulings and separate them from Prof. Hoyng’s essential practical takeaways.Key Episode Highlights:CJEU Referral: The Court of Appeal referred its first questions to the CJEU regarding jurisdiction (Dyson v Dreame International and Eurep).File Wrapper Estoppel: The Court of Appeal's acceptance of a form of "file wrapper estoppel" in claim interpretation (Dyson v Dreame).General Injunctions: The granting of generally worded injunctions by the Court of Appeal (Dyson v Dreame).Appellate Procedure: The confirmed rule of only one exchange of written pleadings on appeal (Hurom v NUC).New prior art : The revocation of a patent—previously upheld by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO—based on newly found prior art (Advanced Brain Monitoring v Philips).📖 Read the full analysis by Prof. Willem Hoyng here: [Insert Link to Article]Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated podcast. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views and does not constitute formal legal advice.

This week, our digital hosts dive into Prof. Willem Hoyng’s analysis of 14 recent Unified Patent Court (UPC) decisions. In this episode, we cover:🔒 Public Access vs. Confidentiality: Why you must proactively request Rule 262A protection during active proceedings if you want to shield documents from the public later under Rule 262.2.💰 Security for Costs: How the Court of Appeal clarified Rule 158.1, confirming that a properly structured insurance policy can replace a traditional bank guarantee.⚖️ Auxiliary Requests: A breakdown of the strategic pitfalls and dangers of filing numerous requests to cure added matter.⏱️ Procedural Strictness: The Court's increasingly rigid approach to deadlines—including the rejection of late-filed physical evidence, the refusal of unjustified suspensive effects, and the strict enforcement of the 15-day deadline for leave to appeal.🤝 Representation Rights: A crucial reaffirmation of the UPCA framework, confirming that patent attorneys hold equal representation rights to lawyers, including full access within confidentiality clubs.📖 Read the full written analysis here: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-09-2026Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated podcast. The commentary and legal opinions reflect the personal views of Prof. Willem Hoyng.

Welcome to a massive week at the Unified Patent Court. Prof. Willem Hoyng unpacks a packed docket of new decisions, highlighting critical strategic traps every patent litigator needs to know.In this episode, we cover:The Post-Trial Confidentiality Trap: Why your documents aren't automatically safe from public access when the case ends."Submarine Tactics": A strong critique of filing 40+ auxiliary requests to create legal uncertainty.Live Evidence: An unprecedented Milan order to physically cut open allegedly infringing tires during the oral hearing.Language & Venue Tactics: The continued wastefulness of non-German companies filing in busy German divisions.Costs & Suspensive Effects: Strict new lessons on fee reimbursements and interim awards.If you are litigating in the UPC, you cannot afford to miss these strategic insights.📖 Read the full written analysis here: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-08-2026Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated podcast. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.#UPCUnfiltered #HRM #UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #IPLaw

Prof. Willem Hoyng reviews a week of tactical blunders and strict enforcement at the UPC.In this episode:💥 Stalling Backfires (Van Loon v Inverquark):The defendant tried to play games with confidentiality deadlines. The Court’s response? Releasing the unredacted expert report to the claimant.🗣️ Stop the Language Swap:Filing in German only to switch to English is a waste of time and money. Prof. Hoyng’s advice: File in English-friendly divisions (The Hague, Paris, Nordic-Baltic) from day one.🔨 No De Novo Review (Centripetal v Palo Alto):The Court of Appeal confirms it is not a "repair shop." You cannot fix a defective inspection request on appeal—the system is strictly front-loaded.✨ Judicial Magic (Adeia v Disney):The Hague Division cancels a hearing with retroactive effect to adjust fee reimbursements. 📖 Read the full written analysis:⁠https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-07-2026⁠Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.#UPCUnfiltered #UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #WillemHoyng #IPLaw #LegalStrategy

Prof. Willem Hoyng reviews this week’s decisions, focusing on cross-border enforcement challenges, strict confidentiality rules, and the efficiency of settling costs.KEY DECISIONS:🔹 CROSS-BORDER ENFORCEMENT (FUJIFILM v Kodak - Mannheim LD)The Court held (in an obiter dictum) that UPC decisions concerning non-UPC territories (e.g., the UK) are only enforceable after recognition by local courts.Prof. Hoyng’s View: He disagrees with this approach, arguing that it complicates cross-border practice. If the UPC has jurisdiction, its orders should be directly enforceable without requiring secondary recognition proceedings.🔹 CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS (EOFlow v Insulet - CoA)The Court of Appeal clarified that marking documents as "Highly Confidential" in the CMS is insufficient to restrict access.The Rule: A request under R. 262A RoP must be filed simultaneously with the document. Without this formal request, the document is immediately accessible and no confidentiality applies.🔹 SETTLEMENT OF COSTS (Bhagat v Oerlikon; 10x Genomics v Curio)Contrasting a protracted dispute over minor costs in 10x Genomics with a swift settlement in Bhagat, Prof. Hoyng encourages practitioners to settle costs amicably.📖 READ THE FULL ANALYSIS:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-06-2026Disclaimer: AI-generated podcast. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.#UPCUnfiltered #UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #WillemHoyng #IPLaw #LegalStrategy

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

Prof. Willem Hoyng reviews this week’s key decisions, focusing on cross-border jurisdiction, strict validity standards, and the importance of choosing the right venue.In this episode:🔹 Cross-Border Reach (Labs v GC Aesthetics - Brussels LD):The Court confirms jurisdiction over alleged infringements in non-UPC countries (UK, Switzerland, Spain). Prof. Hoyng warns litigators: if you don't raise a jurisdiction objection properly, the Court won't do it for you.🔹 PI Rejected (Guardant v Sophia - Paris LD):Added Matter: The Court refused a PI, ruling the patent likely invalid. It clarified that finding claim elements "scattered" across a description is not enough—the specific combination must be disclosed.Urgency: A 3-month delay in filing was accepted as reasonable for complex technology, a view Prof. Hoyng praises as "realistic."🔹 Suspensive Effect & Default Judgments (Applicant v Amycel - CoA):The Court of Appeal rejected a request to suspend a default judgment requiring the defendant to publish a ruling online. The takeaway? "Irreversible consequences" alone are not enough to stop enforcement; the decision must be "manifestly erroneous."📖 Read the full written analysis:[Link]Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.#UPCUnfiltered #UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #WillemHoyng #IPLaw #LegalStrategy

Prof. Willem Hoyng reviews this week’s decisions with a clear warning: The UPC is front-loaded and unforgiving, and forum choice is becoming a critical strategic variable.In this episode:⚠️ Front-loading Traps (Ona v Google; Fisher v Flexicare):Too late for indirect infringement: In Ona, a late attempt to argue indirect infringement was refused. If it's not in your Statement of Claim, it's out.EPO rules don't apply: In Fisher, "subsequent" auxiliary requests were rejected. Prof. Hoyng warns representatives that they must justify amendments upfront under the strict UPC Rules of Procedure.🔹 Forum Selection (ZTE v Samsung):Key procedural decisions were deferred until after the hearing due to time constraints. Prof. Hoyng warns that overload in German divisions is a real risk—claimants should consider other divisions (Paris, Milan, The Hague) to avoid delays.🔹 The "Conditional" Cost Trap (Emboline v AorticLab):The Munich LD ordered a defendant to pay costs for a conditional revocation counterclaim, even though they succeeded on non-infringement. Prof. Hoyng calls this "wrong and unjust," as it penalizes a necessary defense.📖 Read the full analysis:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/es/noticias/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-03-2026Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.#UPCUnfiltered #UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #WillemHoyng #IPLaw #LegalStrategy

Prof. Willem Hoyng reviews a busy start to 2026, analyzing 13 selected decisions with critical lessons on strategy, procedure, and copyright.In this episode:🔹 Commercial Access to File (Docket Navigator v Sumi/Syngenta):The Court of Appeal rejects a data platform's request to access case documents for its subscribers. Prof. Hoyng analyzes the "dead letter" risk to Rule 262 and argues that commercially distributing pleadings likely constitutes copyright infringement.🔹 No Suspensive Effect (Amazon v InterDigital):Amazon fails to stop a Mannheim order carrying potential penalties of up to €50 million. We discuss the "manifestly erroneous" standard and why the Court found no immediate urgency to suspend the order.🔹 The "Front-Loaded" Reality (VMR v NJOY):A harsh lesson on appellate procedure: the Court refuses to admit a corrected translation filed late. Plus, Prof. Hoyng critiques the EPO for missing critical prior art during examination.📖 Read the full written analysis:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-02-2026Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.#UPCUnfiltered #UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #WillemHoyng #IPLaw #LegalTech

With the UPC quiet over the holidays, Prof. Willem Hoyng kicks off 2026 by analyzing a major cross-border clash between the US District Court (Waco) and the Munich Regional Court.In BMW v Onesta, the US Court blocked Onesta from pursuing an "anti-anti-suit injunction" in Germany. Prof. Hoyng offers a critique of the dynamics at play.Prof. Hoyng’s Key Takeaways:🔹 "Judicial Imperialism": Prof. Hoyng argues that the Munich Court is overreaching by granting injunctions on US patents, a move he characterizes as "judicial imperialism" that risks international friction.🔹 The Bifurcation Trap: He warns that applying German bifurcation rules to foreign patents creates an "ideal forum" for NPEs to leverage "weak" patents before validity is tested.🔹 A Call for Comity: Prof. Hoyng suggests EU courts should generally avoid adjudicating non-European patents, noting that the current attitude invites unavoidable counter-reactions from foreign courts.Tune in for the first episode of the year! 🥂📖 Read the full analysis:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-01-2026Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices. The commentary reflects Prof. Hoyng’s personal views.#UPCUnfiltered #UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #WillemHoyng #BMWvOnesta #PatentLaw

In this year-end episode, our AI hosts discuss Prof. Willem Hoyng’s take on the final UPC items of 2025. After 866 notes this year, Prof. Hoyng discusses a final two.THIS WEEK’S HIGHLIGHTS:🔹 Revocation of ex parte inspection order (Düsseldorf LD)The Court revoked an ex parte inspection/seizure order, holding that the application did not provide correct and complete information on necessity. The availability of the products via Amazon weighed against an invasive measure. Prof. Hoyng welcomes the decision as a strong signal on the duty of full disclosure in ex parte requests.(Case: Ecovacs v Roborock)🔹 Anti-suit injunction and cross-border FRAND litigation (Mannheim LD)In a decision at the intersection of UPC enforcement and UK FRAND rate-setting, the Mannheim Division issued an anti-suit injunction backed by substantial penalty payments. Prof. Hoyng analyses the Division’s reliance on “ordre public” and considers the implications for international comity and the ability to litigate in foreign forums.(Case: InterDigital v Amazon)Tune in for the final episode of the year. 🥂📖 READ THE FULL ANALYSIS:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-52-2025Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices; minor inaccuracies may occur. The commentary reflects Prof. Hoyng’s personal views.#UPCUnfiltered #UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #CaseLaw #WillemHoyng #LegalTech #WeDoIP #PatentLaw #UPCCaseLaw #YearEndReview

In this week’s episode, our AI hosts unpack Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on the key Unified Patent Court decisions from Week 51, 2025.In this episode, we cover:Sanofi v StadaPharm (Munich LD): A critical look at "reasonable expectation of success" regarding inventive step. Prof. Hoyng questions the court's divergence from the EPO Board of Appeal on reasonable expectation of success.Cardo v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite (Milan LD): An "excellent decision" on valid service under the Hague Convention when the Chinese Central Authority rejects service. Practical Tip: Why you must draft "Hong Kong, China" in your Statement of Claim.UERAN v Xiaomi (Court of Appeal): The CoA refuses a language change from English to German, reinforcing the UPC's international nature.Plus: Decisions on security for costs (Munich), default judgments (The Hague), and suspensive effect (CoA).Read Prof. Hoyng's full written analysis here:🔗 https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-51-2025About this podcast:UPC Unfiltered (AI) brings you weekly audio summaries of Prof. Willem Hoyng's renowned commentary on Unified Patent Court case law. Perfect for your commute or coffee break!Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices; minor inaccuracies may occur. All commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.

In this episode covering Week 50 of 2025, our AI hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng’s expert analysis of the latest Unified Patent Court decisions.Key highlights include:Controversial PI Decision (LD Düsseldorf): Professor Hoyng strongly disagrees with the ruling in Roche v Menarini, arguing the court was "too liberal" on urgency regarding a product marketed since 2023 and questioning the jurisdiction over French and Italian defendants.Trade Fair Raids & Anti-Orders (LD Düsseldorf): Following Komax v Jiangsu, learn a strategic playbook for avoiding disruptive "raids" at exhibitions, including the use of ex parte "anti-orders."The Duty to Search (Court of Appeal): In Bhagat v Oerlikon, the Court confirms that ignorance is no excuse: international companies entering the UPC market have a duty to verify the patent landscape or face damages.The Christmas Champagne Challenge 🍾: Can you solve Professor Hoyng's tricky legal question from M-A-S v Altech regarding a Turkish manufacturer? A bottle of champagne awaits the winner!Goethe & Auxiliary Requests (LD The Hague): In Maxell v Samsung, faced with 44 auxiliary requests and 40+ invalidity attacks, Professor Hoyng invokes Goethe: "In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister" (It is in limitation that the master first reveals himself).Read the full in-depth written analysis by Prof. Hoyng here:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-50-2025(Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices—minor inaccuracies may occur.)

In this episode covering Week 49 of 2025, our AI hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng’s expert analysis of the latest Unified Patent Court decisions.Key highlights include:Default Judgment re. 🍕 (LD Milan): A delicious twist in patent law. The court grants a default judgment regarding a pizza-making patent, ordering the defendant to post a message on their website.Ex Parte Seizure (LD Düsseldorf): A textbook case in Topsoe v Sypox. The court confirms that stopping production at a plant is authorized if necessary to secure evidence for a method patent.Jurisdiction over Non-UPC Countries (LD Paris): In Keeex v Adobe, the court claims jurisdiction over non-UPC states based on website accessibility—a move Professor Hoyng argues stretches the Wintersteiger doctrine too far.No Suspensive Effect (Court of Appeal): Suinno v Microsoft sees another request denied, prompting a discussion on the need for judicial assistants.Conduct of Representatives (LD Mannheim): A serious warning in Centripetal v Keysight regarding baseless accusations against opposing counsel.Read the full in-depth written analysis by Prof. Hoyng here: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-49-2025(Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices—minor inaccuracies may occur.)

In this jam-packed edition of UPC Unfiltered, we break down a massive week of decisions from the Unified Patent Court, featuring the raw and insightful commentary of Professor Willem Hoyng.This week is headlined by landmark Court of Appeal decisions that redefine how the UPC assesses Inventive Step, moving toward a "holistic" approach. Professor Hoyng also delivers stark warnings regarding urgency in Preliminary Injunctions—if you wait, you lose.In this episode, we cover:The "Holistic" Approach (Meril v Edwards & Amgen v Sanofi): Why the Court of Appeal rejected the strict "problem-solution approach" in favor of a more realistic test, and why this brings the UPC closer to US practice.Urgency is Critical (Barco v Yealink & Merz v Viatris): Prof. Hoyng’s "6-to-8 week" rule for filing PIs and why General Counsels need a rapid-response protocol.File-Wrapper Estoppel (Raccords v First Plast): A debate on the "Paris Test" vs. the "Dutch Test" for equivalence.Procedural Battles: Security for costs for UPC entities (BFexaQC), evidentiary seizures at trade fairs (LiNA), and "old lawyer tricks" regarding written pleadings (Canon).Confidentiality & Costs: Liability for non-employees in confidentiality clubs and why the current cost rules are "a mess."Cases discussed:Meril v Edwards / Amgen v Sanofi (Court of Appeal)Barco v Yealink (Court of Appeal)Strabag v Swarco (Court of Appeal)Sun v Vivo (Court of Appeal)Canon v Katun (LD Düsseldorf)Raccords v First Plast (LD Paris)BFexaQC v NVIDIA (LD Munich)Brita v Fileder (LD Hamburg)Solvay v Zhejiang (LD Munich)Advanced Cell Diagnostics v Molecular Instruments (LD The Hague)LiNA v Tonglu (LD Düsseldorf)Baussmann v Raimund Beck (CD Munich)Note: This podcast is AI-generated based strictly on the written commentary of Prof. Willem Hoyng (HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER).Subscribe for the full weekly written version of UPC Unfiltered: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/es/noticias/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-48-2025

This episode covers important jurisdictional questions regarding FRAND determinations and threatened infringement, as well as a "textbook" guide to handling evidence and confidentiality following inspection orders.Highlights include:FRAND Determination Jurisdiction (LD Paris): Analysis of Sun v VIVO, where the court confirmed its jurisdiction to deal with declarations of FRAND terms. Professor Hoyng argues that the Court can and should set FRAND terms if parties disagree, particularly when injunctions are at stake.Preliminary Objections Rejected (LD Lisbon): A look at Boehringer v Zentiva, where the court confirmed jurisdiction over threatened infringement, rejecting arguments that the threat relied solely on an administrative act. Prof. Hoyng praises the court's legal understanding while criticizing the filing of "useless" objections.Saisie & Confidentiality (LD Düsseldorf): A deep dive into OTEC v STEROS and Bekaert v Siltronic. These decisions illustrate the correct procedural handling of expert reports from inspection orders, including strict deadlines for confidentiality requests and the management of redacted information.Withdrawal Due to Non-Existent Defendant (LD Düsseldorf): A cautionary tale from Leap Tools v Wizart, emphasizing the importance of verifying a defendant's existence and address before initiating service.Read the full analysis by Prof. Hoyng:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/nl/nieuws/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-47-2025 Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices—minor inaccuracies may occur.

Catch up on this week’s key UPC rulings as our AI hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng’s expert analysis of the decisions from Week 46, 2025.Highlights include:Service on Chinese Defendants (LD The Hague vs. LD Düsseldorf): A detailed look at the contrasting handling of service. While the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted a 5-month delay in PI proceedings (HP v Rentmeister), the Hague Local Division moved efficiently to allow alternative service (Avient v Xingi). Prof. Hoyng provides strategic advice on utilizing Article 15(3) of the Hague Service Convention.Review of Saisie Orders (LD Brussels): Analysis of Organon v Genentech, where the court confirmed an ex parte inspection order. The ruling clarifies that an order's correctness is judged based on the facts known at the time of issuance, not the results of the seizure.Suspensive Effect Refused (CoA): The Court of Appeal reaffirms the high bar for suspending a preliminary injunction pending appeal in Lepu v Occlutech, confirming that only a "manifest error" justifies such a measure.Read the full analysis by Prof. Hoyng:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-46-2025Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices—minor inaccuracies may occur.

Catch up on this week’s key UPC rulings as our AI hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng’s expert analysis of the decisions from Week 45, 2025. This week was dominated by the Court of Appeal, which issued three significant procedural and substantive rulings.Highlights include:Patent Revocation Confirmed (CoA): In Seoul Viosys v expert klein, the Court of Appeal dismissed the patentee's appeal, confirming the patent's revocation for added matter. The decision provides a critical lesson on the binding nature of the filed English translation of a PCT application.PI Order Set Aside on Appeal (CoA): A look at Otec v Steros, where the CoA overturned a Preliminary Injunction granted by the Hamburg LD. The ruling found a 'clear error' in claim interpretation, serving as a major check on first-instance decisions.No Suspensive Effect for Info Order (CoA): In Blacksheep v HL Display, the Court of Appeal refused to suspend an order to provide detailed information pending appeal. It confirmed that the appeal becoming "devoid of purpose" (i.e., the information is gone) is not, by itself, an exceptional circumstance.Patent Upheld & Infringed (LD Hamburg): Analysis of a "textbook" merits decision from the Hamburg LD in Dolle v Fakro, where the court upheld a patent's validity against numerous grounds (added matter, novelty, inventive step, etc.) and found infringement.📖 Full Week 45 analysis by Prof. Hoyng:👉 https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-45-22025/Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices—minor inaccuracies may occur.

In this episode (Week 44, 2025), our AI hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng’s expert analysis of the latest key UPC rulings.Highlights from this episode include:🔹 Res Judicata from National Courts (LD Munich): In Heraeus v Vibrantz, the UPC respected a German court’s decision as res iudicata, but still allowed a new invalidity argument (Art. 83 EPC) that wasn't raised nationally.🔹 Security for Costs on Appeal (Court of Appeal): A key ruling in Oerlikon v Bhagat. The CoA denied security for first instance costs but granted it for the appeal itself, citing the appellant's refusal to pay.🔹 "Useless" PI against non-appearing defendants? (LD Düsseldorf): In HP v Rentmeister, a PI was granted, but Willem Hoyng questions its value since no ruling was given against the Chinese defendant. He argues Art. 15 of The Hague Convention was overlooked.📖 For the full in-depth written analysis by Prof. Hoyng, click here:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-44-2025/(Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices—minor inaccuracies may occur.)#UPCUnfiltered #UnifiedPatent-Court #PatentLitigation #UPC #CaseLaw #WillemHoyng #LegalTech #PatentLaw #ResJudicata #SecurityForCosts

Catch up on this week’s key UPC rulings as our AI hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng’s expert analysis of the decisions from Week 43, 2025. This week features major decisions on the merits where auxiliary requests saved patents, but public interest concerns led to a notable carve-out from an injunction. We also cover key preliminary injunction rulings.Highlights include:Limited Injunction Due to Public Interest (CD Paris): In Meril v Edwards, although the patent was invalid as granted, Auxiliary Request 2 was found valid and infringed. However, the court allowed one infringing product to remain on the market due to public interest.Patent Invalid as Granted, AR Upheld (CD Milan): In bioMérieux v Labrador, the patent was similarly revoked as granted (added matter/novelty), but Auxiliary Request 3 was upheld as valid, showcasing efficient case management by the court.PI Granted (LD The Hague): A preliminary injunction was granted in Abbott v Sinocare based on a recently granted divisional patent, overcoming the defendant's narrow claim interpretation arguments.PI Granted for Imminent Infringement (LD Hamburg): In Occlutech v Lepu, the court granted a PI against a company based on obtaining CE marking and showcasing products at trade fairs, confirming this constitutes imminent infringement.Tune in to understand the strategic implications of these important decisions.📖 Full Week 43 analysis by Prof. Hoyng:👉 https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-43-2025/Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices—minor inaccuracies may occur.

Catch up on this week’s key UPC rulings as our AI hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng’s expert analysis of the decisions from Week 42, 2025.Highlights include:Enforcement & Penalties (CoA): A deep dive into the Court of Appeal's "must-read" decision in Kodak v FUJIFILM , which laid out a clear framework for dealing with penalty orders and other crucial enforcement issues.Long-Arm Jurisdiction, Validity & Infringement (The Hague LD): Analysis of the ruling in HL Display v Black Sheep, where the court found the patent valid and infringed , and confirmed its jurisdiction to rule over a Dutch defendant for infringements in all countries where the patent has been validated.Valid but Not Infringed (Düsseldorf LD): A look at the decision in Hartman v Omni-Pac, where the court upheld a patent in amended form but found no infringement (either literally or by equivalence). Late equivalence arguments were not admitted.For the Full Week 42 analysis by Professor Hoyng, visit:👉 https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-42-2025/Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices – minor inaccuracies may occur.

Catch up on this week’s keyUPC rulings as our AI hosts unpack Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert analysis of thedecisions from Week 41, 2025. Highlights include: 🔹 Fundamental Challenge to UPC Rejected (CoA): In Roku v Sun/Dolby, the Court of Appeal decisivelydismissed a preliminary objection that challenged the UPC's legal foundation. Thecourt confirmed the UPC's international jurisdiction and its status as a commoncourt of the EU Member States, seeing no reason to refer questions to the CJEU.🔹 PI Case Management (Paris LD): The courtproactively set strict page limits (e.g., 100 pages for the Defence) in a PIcase, signaling its intent to manage complex cases efficiently. (GuardantHealth v Sophia Genetics)🔹 Settlement Confidentiality (Hamburg LD):The court confirmed a settlement agreement, found that it containedconfidential information, but refused to take a final decision on confidentialityuntil a member of the public requests access to file. (Med-El v Zhejiang) Tune in on your commute orcoffee break! 🚗☕📖 Full Week 41 analysis by Prof. Hoyng: 👉 https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-41-2025/ Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices - minor inaccuracies may occur. #UPCUnfiltered#UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #CaseLaw #WillemHoyng #LegalTech #WeDoIP#PatentLaw 

A landmark week at the Unified Patent Court, with the Court of Appeal issuing two "must-read" final decisions on the merits that shape core UPC doctrine. Our AI hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng’s expert analysis of the key rulings from Week 40, 2025.Key topics covered in this episode include:Accessory and Director Liability (CoA – Belkin v Philips): In a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal established the UPC framework for accessory liability. It held that accessories (such as managing directors), can be enjoined as “infringers” under a broad reading of Article 63(1) UPCA if they are aware of their company’s infringement, have the ability to stop it, and fail to do so.Key Enforcement Rules Clarified (CoA – Belkin v Philips): The same decision clarified that "offering" an infringing product has a broad economic meaning (e.g., a website display) and that corrective measures, such as a product recall, must be granted if they are proportionate.Patent Revoked for Added Matter (CoA – expert Klein v Seoul): The Court of Appeal overturned a decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division and revoked a patent for extension of subject matter, applying the UPC’s “gold standard” for Article 123(2) EPC.For a deeper dive, read Professor Hoyng's full written commentary for Week 40:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-40-2025/Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices—minor inaccuracies may occur

Week 39: A Full Merits Decision & CoA Rulings on Confidentiality and DeadlinesEpisode Description:Week 39 at the UPC brought major rulings on the merits of a patent case, along with key procedural and confidentiality decisions from the Court of Appeal. Our AI hosts unpack the highlights from Professor Willem Hoyng's expert analysis of the week's most important decisions.Key topics covered in this episode include:Full Merits Decision (Hamburg LD – Nera v Xiaomi): A detailed breakdown of a final decision where a patent was found invalid as granted for added matter. The court held that the surviving auxiliary claims were novel and inventive, but ultimately not infringed.Confidentiality Appeals (CoA – Apple/Ericsson v Asus): Analysis of a Court of Appeal ruling which confirmed that a third party may intervene in an appeal where its own confidential information is at stake, allowing Apple to join the proceedings.Strict Appeal Deadlines (CoA – BEGA v Washtower): A look at the Court of Appeal's strict stance on time limits, highlighted by its decision to reduce a two-week extension request for filing grounds of appeal down to just three working days.Ex Parte Measures (Düsseldorf LD – Otec v Steros): A practical example of the court's power to grant an ex parte inspection and evidentiary seizure at a trade fair, following recent Court of Appeal guidance.For a deeper dive into these cases, read Professor Hoyng's full written commentary for Week 39:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-39-2025/Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices; minor inaccuracies may occur.

This week at the UPC saw a series of sharp lessons on procedure and case management. The Court of Appeal confirmed a fatal, non-restorable deadline for Unitary Patent applications, while first-instance divisions cracked down on overly long defensive filings and clarified rules on security for costs and discovery.In this AI-powered episode, our digital hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng's expert analysis of the key decisions from Week 38, 2025.Key topics covered include:Fatal Deadline for Unitary Effect (CoA): A breakdown of the Court of Appeal's decision in Bodycap v EPO, which confirmed the EPO’s refusal of a Unitary Patent after a correction deadline was missed, holding that this time limit cannot be re-established.Overly Long Briefs (Paris LD): An analysis of a powerful case management decision in Merz v Viatris, where a judge ordered a defendant who had filed a 473-page defence to a preliminary injunction application to submit a 70-page summary.Security for Costs (Mannheim LD): A look at the court's reasoning in Total Semiconductor v TI for upholding a security for costs order against a US startup, based on factors like litigation funding and potential US enforcement difficulties.Disclosure of License Agreements (Mannheim LD): In the SEP case of Huawei v MediaTek, the court ordered a claimant to produce license agreements, confirming its power to compel the disclosure of evidence relevant to determining a FRAND rate.For a deeper dive, read Professor Hoyng's full written commentary for Week 38:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-38-2025/Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices – minor inaccuracies may occur.

This week, our AI hosts break down Professor Willem Hoyng's analysis of the latest UPC decisions. We explore a preliminary injunction from The Hague based on the doctrine of equivalents and a key ruling from Paris on the confidentiality of legal costs. Plus, we dive into a Düsseldorf order on using information in parallel cases and a Mannheim decision on whether selling a product in parts constitutes direct infringement.Key Rulings Discussed:Washtower v Industriebeteiligungs (The Hague LD): Infringement by equivalence.Microsoft v Suinno (Paris CD): Confidentiality of lawyers' invoices.Ona v Google (Düsseldorf LD): Use of confidential information across cases.Haas v Windhager (Mannheim LD): Direct infringement for products sold in parts.For the full in-depth analysis by Prof. Hoyng, visit:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-37-2025/(Disclaimer: This podcast is AI-generated and may contain minor inaccuracies.)

In this AI-powered breakdown of Week 36, 2025, our digital hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng's expert analysis on the decisions shaping UPC practice.Key topics covered in this episode include:Late Arguments (Court of Appeal): A look at a Court of Appeal decision confirming the high bar for discretionary reviews and why invalidity grounds that could have been raised earlier with "reasonable diligence" will be rejected. (CeraCon v Sunstar)Security for Costs: Analysis of a Mannheim Local Division order requiring €100,000 in security due to the difficulty of enforcing a judgment in China, even when the claimant has assets in the EU. (Huawei v MediaTek)Preliminary Injunctions: How the Düsseldorf Local Division handles PI requests when a defendant defaults, conducting its own full assessment of the merits but refusing to grant an injunction against a party that has not yet been served. (HP v Zhuhai & Rentmeister)Stays for EPO Oppositions: A clear ruling from the Mannheim Local Division refusing to stay proceedings pending EPO opposition, confirming the UPC's commitment to its own speedy timeline. (Centripetal v Keysight)For a deeper dive, read Professor Hoyng's full written commentary for Week 36:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-36-2025/Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices—minor inaccuracies may occur.

UPC UNFILTERED (AI) PODCAST – Episode 24. Highlights include:🔹 Urgency is strict – The Hague LD held that a 9-month delay was much too long. Delay for more than 2-3 months and your PI will be denied.🔹 Transparency is default – Munich LD allowed public access, rejecting “litigation strategy” as a reason for secrecy.🔹 Security for costs – Munich LD required the claimant to post security.🔹 Rejoinder limits – Mannheim LD disregarded arguments not tied to the Reply.📖 Full writtenversion → https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-35-2025/AI-generated podcast — minor inaccuracies may occur.

UPC UNFILTERED (AI) PODCAST – Episode 23Week 34, 2025: Hamburg clarifies cross-border jurisdiction (Dyson v Dreame), the Court of Appeal enforces the strict one-month costs deadline (Expert v Seoul), and Munich warns against German-language filings in international disputes (Innovative Sonic v Oppo). Judges also push efficiency with case-splitting and strict front-loading.AI-generated podcast — minor inaccuracies may occur.

In Episode 22, our AI hosts unpack Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on the UPC decisions from Week 33, 2025.Highlights include:Imminent Infringement – CoA (Boehringer v Zentiva)Pre-launch steps such as pricing and reimbursement may already justify a preliminary injunction before market entry.Patent Invalidity – LD The Hague (Winnow v Orbisk)A broad claim interpretation used for infringement also led to invalidity. The Court applied the PSA but left open whether it is mandatory.Suspensive Effect – CoA (Sun v Vivo)The Court of Appeal rejected a suspension request in an urgent case for lack of a filed appeal. Prof. Hoyng strongly questions that reading of R. 223.4 RoP.Costs & Security – LD Munich & LD Hamburg (Syntorr v Arthrex; Ballinno v UEFA)Examples of pragmatic case management: encouraging early cost settlements and efficient release of security.🎧 Stay ahead of the UPC’s fast-evolving case law with clear insights on both substance and procedure.AI-generated voices; some details or pronunciations may be slightly inaccurate.#UPC #UPCUnfiltered #PatentLitigation #PatentLaw #UnifiedPatentCourt #CaseLaw

🎙️ UPC UNFILTERED (AI) PODCAST – Episode 21 🎙️Our digital hosts unpack Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on UPC Week 32, 2025 decisions — highlighting rulings with real procedural impact for practitioners.This episode covers:Confidentiality Clubs (R. 262A RoP): Necessity governs who gets access to confidential information.Service at a Trade Fair: service at a trade fair can be valid and can lead to a default judgment.Keeping Costs Confidential: How and when to protect detailed billing statements.Perfect for your commute or coffee break — stay ahead on the latest UPC developments. 🚗🚆☕Disclaimer: AI-generated voices used; minor inaccuracies or mispronunciations may occur.

Must-read CoA ruling on confidentiality, strict added-matter tests in Munich & Düsseldorf, and key lessons on procedure and costs.This week at the UPC brings important lessons for practitioners.Highlights:Confidentiality requests clarified (CoA): If you don’t file a party-to-party secrecy request (R. 262A) with your submission, the information isn’t confidential. No second chances.Added Matter: Both the Munich and Düsseldorf divisions revoked patents, with Düsseldorf applying a strict "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.UPC rules take precedence: The Mannheim Division rejected reliance on German procedural law, reinforcing that the UPC’s Rules of Procedure govern.Costs: The Milan Central Division slashed a recovery request, making clear costs must be proportionate and reasonable.🎧 Tune in now for Willem Hoyng’s commentary on these key Week 31, 2025 decisions.📖 Full analysis: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-31-2025/ Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices—minor errors or mispronunciations may occur.

Episode 19 – UPC UNFILTERED A packed week of UPC rulings, including:Revocation (Paris – Sibio v Abbott): Patent upheld after full review on added matter, novelty, and inventive step. General prior-art references are insufficient — grounds must be set out for each claim.Enforcement (Düsseldorf – Fuji v Kodak): Escalating daily penalties for non-compliance with an injunction. No prior warning or translation required before enforcement.Procedural lessons: Poorly framed auxiliary requests can unintentionally narrow a patent. Withdrawing an appeal can revive a patent previously declared invalid.Disclaimer: AI-generated voices — minor errors or mispronunciations may occur.

🎙 Episode 18 – UK Jurisdiction, Evidentiary Seizures & Procedural DisciplineIn this week’s episode, our digital hosts important rulings on inter alia:🔹 Jurisdiction over the UKThe Mannheim Local Division confirms it can hear infringement claims concerning the UK part of a European patent, applying UK law on substance and UPC rules on procedure.🔹 Standards for SaisiesThe Court of Appeal sets out what’s required for an ex parte evidentiary seizure: urgency, risk of evidence loss, and full candor from the applicant.🔹 Strict Procedural ExpectationsFrom refusing hearing postponements for holidays to pushing back against sprawling invalidity attacks, the UPC is setting a clear tone.🎧 Tune in now for your weekly summary of the UPC’s evolving case law.Disclaimer: AI-generated voices. Minor errors or mispronunciations may occur.#UPC #PatentLitigation #UPCUnfiltered #CaseLaw #LegalTech

In this AI-powered episode of UPC Unfiltered, get the key takeaways from a dense week of UPC caselaw. Our digital hosts discuss Prof. Willem Hoyng's Unfiltered analysis of 12 new decisions on costs, withdrawals, and procedural discipline.Highlights from this episode include:Security for costs: Learn when significant security can be required, based on factors like NPE status or difficulties enforcing costs abroad, and how failure to provide it can lead directly to a default judgment.Cost orders: We discuss why withdrawing a claim triggers a mandatory cost procedure that can lead to an expensive cost order. However, the court also clarifies that “unnecessary” expenses are not reimbursed, nor are the costs for the cost procedure itself.Warning on procedural conduct: Hear about a sharp warning from a Judge-Rapporteur against playing games, confirming a party’s representative in the main action can’t evade service of an anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) by arguing they weren’t instructed.Auxiliary requests for dependent claims: The Mannheim Local Division repeats a crucial point: if you want to defend dependent claims after claim 1 is found invalid, an auxiliary request is necessary. Simply relying on the granted claims is not enough.For a deeper analysis of these cases and more, read the full Week 28 commentary here:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-28-2025/Disclaimer: Our AI-generated voices aim to assist—some details may be off and pronunciations might not be perfect.

In this AI-powered edition of UPC Unfiltered, our digital hosts dive into Professor Willem Hoyng’s analysis of key decisions from the Unified Patent Court in Week 27.Please note: This episode covers decisions published up to July 2, 2025. Due to the UPC website being temporarily unavailable due to the implementation of the new CMS, cases decided after this date will be covered in our next episode.Key topics discussed this week include:Settlement & Fee Reimbursement: A critical ruling from the Düsseldorf Local Division clarifies that settling a case after the oral hearing means no reimbursement of court fees.Stay of Proceedings: The Court of Appeal confirms that a stay stops the clock on ALL procedural obligations, including the duty to provide security for costs.Security for Costs Reminder: A sharp decision from the Munich Local Division reinforces the fundamental rule that a claimant cannot ask for security for costs.For further reading and the full Week 27 commentary, please visit:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-27-2025/Disclaimer: Our AI-generated voices aim to assist—some details may be off and pronunciations might not be perfect.

Episode 15: UPC Procedural Points: Fees, Costs, and Settlements (Week 26)Stay ahead of the curve with UPC Unfiltered! In this AI-powered edition, our digital hosts unpack Prof. Willem Hoyng’s insights on a range of important procedural and financial topics from the Court of Appeal, based on the key decisions from Week 26.This episode covers critical topics for practitioners, including:Court Fee Deadlines: A key clarification on exactly when court fees are considered "paid," providing crucial certainty for all litigants.Security for Costs: A look at when a claimant may be required to provide a security deposit to cover a defendant's potential legal costs.Settlement & Confidentiality: An analysis of the UPC's procedure for confirming settlement agreements and its current approach to handling requests to keep them confidential.Join us as our digital hosts break down these fundamental topics, offering key insights for anyone litigating at the UPC.Prefer the written version? Find Prof. Hoyng's full commentary for Week 26 on the Hoyng Rokh Monegier website.Disclaimer: Our AI-generated voices aim to assist—some details may be off and pronunciations might not be perfect.

In this AI-powered edition of UPC Unfiltered, our digital hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng's essential insights on the key developments from the Unified Patent Court in Week 25.This episode focuses on crucial clarifications from the Court of Appeal regarding procedural rules and practical guidance on jurisdiction from the Local Divisions.Key case discussions in this episode include:Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere: The Court of Appeal confirms that a request for a procedural measure cannot be used as a "motion to reconsider" a final decision.Alexion v Samsung: A very high bar is set for rehearings. The Court clarifies they are reserved for rare, fundamental procedural defects, not for correcting mere legal errors.Aortic Lab v Emboline: In a key reversal, the Court of Appeal rules that as a general principle, only defendants are entitled to request security for costs.Headwater v Motorola: The Munich Local Division affirms a broad interpretation of "commercial relation," making it easier to sue multiple defendants from the same corporate group together.Further Reading & Resources:Read Prof. Hoyng's full written commentary for Week 25:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-25-2025/Listen on Spotify:https://spoti.fi/43O0vVxListen on Apple Podcasts:https://apple.co/4lv0lJ5Disclaimer: This podcast is produced with AI-generated voices to assist in accessibility. Some pronunciations or details may be imperfect.

Episode 13: Access to Pleadings, Translation Costs, and Case Management (Week 24)Stay ahead of the curve with UPC Unfiltered! In this AI-powered edition, our digital hosts dive into Prof. Willem Hoyng's sharp analysis of the Unified Patent Court's key decisions from Week 24.This episode unpacks critical developments impacting patent law in Europe, including:Meissner v NJOY and Juul: The Paris Central Division grants access to case files after a final decision, prompting a key warning about the potential copyright risks of simply copy-pasting pleadings in other proceedings.Aesculap AG v Shanghai International: the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a party to bear the costs of simultaneous translation for choosing representatives who don't speak the language of the proceedings.TCL Europe v Corning: An example of UPC pragmatism, where a hands-on Judge-Rapporteur efficiently resolved a dispute over case amendments via a simple video discussion with the parties.Canon v General Plastic: An early decision by the Düsseldorf Local Division not to bifurcate a case, highlighting the court's proactive focus on speed and efficiency from the outset.Join us as our digital hosts unpack these pivotal rulings, focusing on practical guidance for litigants, cost implications, and the court's hands-on approach to case management.Prefer the written version? Find Prof. Hoyng's full commentary for Week 24 on the Hoyng Rokh Monegier website.Disclaimer: Our AI-generated voices aim to assist—some details may be off and pronunciations might not be perfect.

Episode 12: UPC Jurisdiction, Strict Deadlines, and Procedural Warnings (Week 23)Stay ahead of the curve with UPC Unfiltered! In this AI-powered edition, our digital hosts dive into Prof. Willem Hoyng's sharp analysis of the Unified Patent Court's key decisions from Week 23.This episode unpacks critical developments impacting patent law in Europe, including:XSYS v Esko-Graphics: A landmark Court of Appeal decision confirming UPC jurisdiction over infringements that occurred even before the court's existence and during a patent's opt-out period.Hanshow v Vusion: A crucial warning from the Court of Appeal on cost procedures, establishing that the one-month deadline to start them is strict and cannot be extended.Hybridgenerator v HG System: A key procedural clarification from the Court of Appeal on who has the power to impose penalties—a full panel, not a single judge.Belkin v Philips: Practical lessons from the Court of Appeal on enforcing judgments, including the setting of reasonable compliance periods and calculating penalty payments.Tiroler Rohre v SSAB: A deep dive into substantive patent law, exploring the Munich Local Division's use of the problem-solution approach and the ongoing debate about the correct methodology for inventive step.Join us as our digital hosts unpack these pivotal rulings, focusing on foundational Court of Appeal precedents, critical warnings on costs, and key debates on substantive law.Prefer the written version? Find Prof. Hoyng's full commentary for Week 23 on the Hoyng Rokh Monegier website.Disclaimer: Our AI-generated voices aim to assist—some details may be off and pronunciations might not be perfect.

Episode 11: Week 22 UPC Rulings Unpacked with Prof. Willem HoyngStay ahead of the curve with UPC Unfiltered! In this AI-powered edition, our digital hosts dive into Prof. Willem Hoyng's sharp analysis of the Unified Patent Court's key decisions from Week 22.This episode unpacks critical developments impacting patent law in Europe, including:Aylo v Dish: The Paris Local Division accepts a Germany-only revocation request and finds a patent invalid due to added matter.Nanoval v ALD: Insights from the Munich Local Division as it upholds an evidentiary seizure, confirming that a "likelihood" of infringement can suffice.Samsung v ZTE: A look at the Mannheim Local Division's decision to significantly reset case value from €500k to €4M in a crucial SEP case.MED-EL v Advanced Bionics: Understanding the rules on court fee reimbursement following a late settlement.Sunstar v SeraCon: Confirmation from the Mannheim Local Division on English as a valid language of proceedings.Join us as our digital hosts unpack these pivotal rulings, focusing on crucial aspects like procedural clarity, enforcement strategies, and the financial implications shaping the evolving UPC landscape.Prefer the written version? Find Prof. Hoyng's full commentary for Week 22 on the Hoyng Rokh Monegier website.Disclaimer: Our AI-generated voices aim to assist—some details may be off and pronunciations might not be perfect.

🎙️ Welcome to Episode 10 of UPC UNFILTERED — your concise, AI-powered guide to the latest Unified Patent Court decisions.Based on Professor Willem Hoyng’s authoritative analysis, this week’s episode covers highlights from Week 21 of 2025, including:• Genevant v Moderna – The Hague LD affirms broad UPC jurisdiction over UPC and non-UPC entities; opt-out validly withdrawn.• Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere – CoA confirms: suspensive effect is the exception, not the rule; no referral to the CJEU.• Total v Texas Instruments – JR denies further pleadings request as unsubstantiated; review also dismissed.• DDP v Greenchemicals – Düsseldorf JR issues a “model” confidentiality order.While our voices are digital, our insights are real. Still, some details may occasionally be slightly off—and names may be mispronounced.📖 Prefer reading? Full Week 21 commentary:👉 https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-21-2025/Brought to you by HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER — we do IP.