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 Deadlines
Episode 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 23
Week 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 UK
The 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 Saisies
The 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 Expectations
From 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:
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/43O0vVx
Listen on Apple Podcasts:https://apple.co/4lv0lJ5
Disclaimer: 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:
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.
