Willem Hoyng's UPC Unfiltered (AI) Podcast

HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Business
  • Updated Weekly

Welcome to "Willem Hoyng's UPC UNFILTERED AI Podcast" – your weekly, AI-generated source for Willem Hoyng’s commentary on UPC case law. In each episode, our AI hosts break down the latest UPC decisions, delivering Willem’s concise insights to help patent professionals stay ahead of the curve. Our AI podcasters are powered by cutting-edge AI and guided by human experts. While our voices are digital, our insights are very real. However, details might occasionally be off and names may be mispronounced. For Willem's "Unfiltered" in written form, visit our website. Subscribe now and stay informed

  1. 5d ago

    Week 33 — Added Matter, Damages & Cost Discipline

    This week, our AI hosts break down Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on a focused set of new Unified Patent Court decisions, with a strong focus on added matter, intermediate generalisation, preliminary injunctions, inventive step, damages, stays, settlements, language of proceedings, and the practical consequences of UPC cost practice. In this episode, we cover: ⚖️ Added Matter, Claim Scope & Inventive Step: Key decisions address added matter, intermediate generalisation, limited claims in PI proceedings, aggregation of obvious features and the UPC’s developing approach to claim interpretation. ⏱️ PIs, Stays & Damages: The week highlights preliminary injunction strategy, urgency after grant, stays pending EPO proceedings, FRAND-related settlement appeals, and difficult questions around damages for non-infringing substitute products. 💰 Costs, Fees & Procedural Choices: Several cases examine settlement withdrawals, reimbursement of court fees, confidentiality of invoices, stays of proceedings, language changes, and the importance of making cost and procedural requests at the right time. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 33, 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.

  2. Aug 10

    Week 32 — Enforcement Risks, FRAND Rate-Setting & Settlement Strategy

    This week, our AI hosts break down Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on a focused set of new Unified Patent Court decisions, with a strong focus on enforcement pending appeal, penalty sums, suspensive effect, FRAND rate-setting, settlements, confidentiality, costs, and the practical consequences of UPC case management. In this episode, we cover: ⚖️ Enforcement, Penalty Sums & Suspensive Effect: Key decisions examine the risks of enforcing first-instance decisions pending appeal, penalty payments after reversal, cost enforcement, and the UPC’s strict approach to suspensive effect. 📡 FRAND Rate-Setting & Interveners: The week highlights rate-setting counterclaims, interveners, SEP pool licensing, admissibility of appeals, and refused stays. 🤝 Settlements, Costs & Case Management: Several cases address settlements under R. 265 and R. 365 RoP, court-fee returns, confidentiality, interim conference preparation, language issues, and recoverable-cost ceilings. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 32, 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.

  3. Aug 3

    Week 31 — Rate-Setting, Seizures & the Limits of UPC Case Management

    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 focus on FRAND and rate-setting, evidentiary seizures, confidentiality, access to documents, interim conferences, settlements, service, and the practical limits of UPC case management. In this episode, we cover: 📡 FRAND, Rate-Setting & Licence Disclosure: Key decisions address SEP litigation, patent-pool intervention, counterclaims for rate-setting, production of licence agreements, confidentiality regimes, and FRAND-focused hearing preparation. 🔍 Evidentiary Seizures, Access & Confidentiality: Several cases examine inspection orders, seizure reports, public access to pleadings and evidence, redacted documents, confidentiality obligations, and what happens when seized evidence does not support infringement. ⚖️ Case Management, Deadlines & Procedural Discipline: The week highlights interim conferences, auxiliary requests, alignment of defence deadlines, language changes, settlements, stays, costs agreements, and the UPC’s ongoing struggle to keep complex cases within its intended timetable. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 31, 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.

  4. Jul 27

    UPC Unfiltered – Week 30, 2026: FRAND, PI Necessity and Access to Court Files

    This week, our AI-hosts discuss Prof. Willem Hoyng’s commentary on 11 UPC decisions published on the UPC website. The headline decision is InterDigital v Disney, in which the Düsseldorf Local Division upheld the patent, found infringement and rejected Disney’s FRAND defence. Disney had not established that InterDigital held a dominant position and was, in any event, found to be an unwilling licensee. The Court granted injunctions and other relief, while ordering InterDigital to provide security of €8 million. The episode also covers: • ParTec v Lenovo: a preliminary injunction refused because the applicant failed to establish why interim relief was necessary rather than awaiting the decision on the merits; • Raimund Beck v Baussmann: claim 1 found not novel, while an auxiliary request corresponding to granted claim 2 was found novel and inventive; • Ter Meer v 2Seventy Bio and Dolby v Optoma: contrasting approaches to public access during ongoing proceedings and after proceedings have ended; • LINA v Tonglu Qianyan Medtech: alternative service authorised after Chinese defendants refused to accept the proceedings; • Lionra v Cisco: the Court of Appeal confirmed that the new court-fee reimbursement rules apply to withdrawals made after 1 January 2026; and • KEEEX v Adobe: security for costs increased from €200,000 to €300,000, with the claimant’s SME status taken into account. Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated podcast. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views and does not constitute legal advice.

  5. Jul 20

    Week 29 — Central Limitation, Conditional Revocation & Procedural Costs

    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 focus on central limitation, dependent claims, conditional counterclaims for revocation, appeal strategy, court fees, confidentiality, and the practical consequences of procedural mistakes. In this episode, we cover: ⚖️ Validity, Central Limitation & Dependent Claims: Key decisions clarify how limited patents, granted dependent claims, novelty, inventive step, claim interpretation, and late validity attacks are handled before the UPC. 🔁 Conditional Revocation, Appeals & Front-Loaded Litigation: The week highlights important guidance on conditional counterclaims, late documents and arguments, suspensive effect and rectification. 💰 Costs, Withdrawals & Litigation Discipline: Several cases address court-fee reimbursement, appeal fees, cost recovery, settlements, withdrawals, formalities, and the financial consequences of procedural missteps. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠ HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 29, 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.

  6. Jul 13

    Week 28 — Penalty Payments, Appeal Fees & Evidence Boundaries

    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 cost recovery, security for costs, evidence production, preliminary injunction appeals, provisional damages, and the practical realities of UPC litigation. In this episode, we cover: 💰 Costs, Court Fees & Security for Costs: Several decisions address withdrawal of appeals, reimbursement of court fees, security for costs, cost-proceeding formalities, appeal fees, suspensive effect, and the practical burden of UPC litigation for smaller parties. 📄 Evidence Production, Seizure Reports & Confidentiality: The week highlights rulings on release of seizure reports, R. 190 RoP requests, source-code evidence, confidentiality regimes, and the limits of evidence production where a request risks becoming a fishing expedition. ⚖️ PI Appeals, Penalty Payments & Front-Loaded Litigation: Recent decisions examine penalty payments, broad interpretations of “offering”, late-filed arguments on appeal, provisional damages, infringement and revocation strategy, and the UPC’s continued insistence that parties present their case properly from the outset. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 28, 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.

  7. Jul 6

    Week 27 — Evidence Production, Opt-Outs & Procedural Discipline

    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 production, opt-outs, late-filed submissions, preliminary injunctions, confidentiality, and the practical realities of UPC litigation. In this episode, we cover: 📄 Evidence Production, Access & Confidentiality: Several decisions address R. 190 RoP evidence requests, access to pleadings and evidence, confidentiality on appeal, public access to court files, and the limits of UPC evidence production compared with general discovery. ⚖️ Opt-Outs, Costs & Procedural Discipline: The week highlights important rulings on opt-out withdrawal, cost recovery, late-filed submissions, auxiliary requests, intervention, enforcement steps, and the UPC’s continued insistence on front-loaded litigation. ⏱️ Preliminary Injunctions, Urgency & Validity: Recent decisions examine PI urgency, added matter, claim interpretation, central limitation proceedings, validity attacks, ex parte procedural issues, and the need for patentees to act promptly and substantiate their case. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 27, 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.

  8. Jun 29

    Week 26 — Forum Shopping, Interim Conferences & Procedural Discipline

    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 forum shopping, interim conferences, confidentiality, infringement and revocation strategy and the practical realities of UPC litigation. In this episode, we cover: ⚖️ Forum Shopping & Jurisdiction: The week includes important Court of Appeal guidance on UPC internal jurisdiction, Central Division competence, commercial relationships between defendants, and the expanding strategic possibilities for where UPC cases can be brought. 🛠️ Interim Conferences & Case Management: Several decisions show the UPC’s continued focus on active case management, including narrowing validity attacks, handling conditional counterclaims, setting hearing schedules, managing costs, and keeping proceedings efficient. 🔐 Confidentiality & FRAND discussions: Recent decisions address confidentiality in SEP and FRAND disputes, access to licence agreements, closed hearings, and the consequences of late or incomplete procedural arguments. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 26, 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.

See All (74)

About

Welcome to "Willem Hoyng's UPC UNFILTERED AI Podcast" – your weekly, AI-generated source for Willem Hoyng’s commentary on UPC case law. In each episode, our AI hosts break down the latest UPC decisions, delivering Willem’s concise insights to help patent professionals stay ahead of the curve. Our AI podcasters are powered by cutting-edge AI and guided by human experts. While our voices are digital, our insights are very real. However, details might occasionally be off and names may be mispronounced. For Willem's "Unfiltered" in written form, visit our website. Subscribe now and stay informed

Information

You Might Also Like