Willem Hoyng's UPC Unfiltered (AI) Podcast

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

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

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

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