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).