In this week's episode of the UPC Unfiltered AI Podcast, our digital hosts unpack Prof. Willem Hoyng’s analysis of 10 new decisions for HRM. The Unified Patent Court is moving incredibly fast, and this week brings massive shifts in European patent litigation strategy.

We break down the hard legal facts of the rulings and separate them from Prof. Hoyng’s essential practical takeaways.

Key Episode Highlights:

• CJEU Referral: The Court of Appeal referred its first questions to the CJEU regarding jurisdiction (Dyson v Dreame International and Eurep).

• File Wrapper Estoppel: The Court of Appeal's acceptance of a form of "file wrapper estoppel" in claim interpretation (Dyson v Dreame).

• General Injunctions: The granting of generally worded injunctions by the Court of Appeal (Dyson v Dreame).

• Appellate Procedure: The confirmed rule of only one exchange of written pleadings on appeal (Hurom v NUC).

• New prior art : The revocation of a patent—previously upheld by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO—based on newly found prior art (Advanced Brain Monitoring v Philips).

  📖 Read the full analysis by Prof. Willem Hoyng here: [Insert Link to Article]

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

This week, our digital hosts dive into Prof. Willem Hoyng’s analysis of 14 recent Unified Patent Court (UPC) decisions.

In this episode, we cover:

• 🔒 Public Access vs. Confidentiality: Why you must proactively request Rule 262A protection during active proceedings if you want to shield documents from the public later under Rule 262.2.

• 💰 Security for Costs: How the Court of Appeal clarified Rule 158.1, confirming that a properly structured insurance policy can replace a traditional bank guarantee.

• ⚖️ Auxiliary Requests: A breakdown of the strategic pitfalls and dangers of filing numerous requests to cure added matter.

• ⏱️ Procedural Strictness: The Court's increasingly rigid approach to deadlines—including the rejection of late-filed physical evidence, the refusal of unjustified suspensive effects, and the strict enforcement of the 15-day deadline for leave to appeal.

• 🤝 Representation Rights: A crucial reaffirmation of the UPCA framework, confirming that patent attorneys hold equal representation rights to lawyers, including full access within confidentiality clubs.

📖 Read the full written analysis here: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-09-2026Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated podcast. The commentary and legal opinions reflect the personal views of Prof. Willem Hoyng.

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-08-2026

Disclaimer: 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-07-2026⁠

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, 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-06-2026

Disclaimer: AI-generated podcast. 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-05-2026

Disclaimer: 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-03-2026

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 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-02-2026

Disclaimer: 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-01-2026

Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices. The commentary reflects Prof. Hoyng’s personal views.

#UPCUnfiltered #UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #WillemHoyng #BMWvOnesta #PatentLaw