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-52-2025
Disclaimer: 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-51-2025
About 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-46-2025
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 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 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