This week, our AI hosts break down Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on a broad set of new Unified Patent Court decisions, with a strong focus on evidence preservation, confidentiality, urgency in PI proceedings, cost recovery, and the practical consequences of UPC case management.

In this episode, we cover:

⚖️ Evidence Preservation & Ex Parte Measures: Key decisions on inspections, seizures, expert impartiality, security, and review of ex parte orders show how invasive evidence-gathering tools are being managed in practice.
🔐 Confidentiality, Timing & Case Management: Several cases underline the importance of raising confidentiality requests, procedural objections, and narrowing issues at the right moment in the proceedings.
💰 Costs, Settlements & Penalties: The week highlights recurring concerns about the UPC’s cost system, court-fee reimbursement, cost settlements, withdrawal of cost proceedings, and the use of penalty sums.
⏱️ PI Urgency & Litigation Reality: Recent PI decisions reinforce the strict approach to urgency and the commercial pressure created by immediately enforceable injunctions and difficult appeals.
🧪 Validity, Infringement & Revocation Strategy: Substantive decisions address inventive step, reasonable expectation of success, post-expiry revocation interest, infringement responsibility, and the role of auxiliary requests.

📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-19-2026   
🔍 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 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: [Insert Link]🔍 Explore the case law and Unfiltered Commentary on our UPC Intelligence Platform: https://upcintelligence.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/

Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated podcast. 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-13-2026

Disclaimer: 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-12-2026⁠⁠⁠

Disclaimer: 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-11-2026⁠

Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated podcast. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views and does not constitute legal advice.