Willem Hoyng's UPC Unfiltered (AI) Podcast

HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER

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. 6d ago

    Week 36 — Enforcement Risk, Intermediary Liability & Procedural Control

    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 focus on enforcement pending appeal, penalty sums, suspensive effect, intermediary liability, evidentiary seizures, late arguments, security for costs, and access to court documents. In this episode, we cover: ⚖️ Enforcement, Penalty Sums & Suspensive Effect: Key decisions address withdrawal of penalty requests, rehearing applications, enforcement risk after appeal, repayment of penalties, and the UPC’s strict approach to suspensive effect. 🌍 Intermediaries, Jurisdiction & Infringement Strategy: The week highlights intermediary liability, UK-related infringement, auxiliary requests, revocation strategy, and the consequences of litigating around non-EU actors. 🔍 Evidence, Access & Procedural Discipline: Several cases examine evidentiary seizures, employee questioning, late arguments, R. 190 evidence requests, security for costs, interpreters, and the need for timely and well-substantiated procedural applications. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 36, 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 31

    Week 35 — SEP Litigation, UPC Jurisdiction & Procedural Timing

    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 SEP enforcement, FRAND defences, declarations of non-infringement, language of proceedings, confidentiality, settlements, evidence production, and the timing discipline required in UPC litigation. In this episode, we cover: 📡 SEP Enforcement, FRAND & Exhaustion: Key decisions address pool licensing, implementer willingness, security, exhaustion, FRAND offers, SEP injunctions, and the strategic role of licence negotiations. ⚖️ Jurisdiction, Language & Procedural Gatekeeping: The week highlights declarations of non-infringement before grant, opt-outs, language rules, preliminary objections and international infringement claims outside UPC territory. 🔍 Confidentiality, Evidence & Litigation Discipline: Several cases examine confidentiality, R. 190 evidence requests, public and private access to information, settlements, reimbursement of fees and the UPC’s insistence on timely, well-substantiated procedural requests. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 35, 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 25

    Week 34 — Procedural Discipline, Conditional Revocation & Claim Construction

    This week, our AI hosts break down Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on a wide-ranging set of new Unified Patent Court decisions, with a strong focus on procedural discipline, conditional counterclaims for revocation, claim construction, confidentiality, preliminary injunctions and the consequences of failing to comply strictly with UPC orders and filing requirements. In this episode, we cover: ⚖️ Claim Construction, Infringement & Validity: Key decisions examine narrower claim interpretations, the principle that identical claim terms generally have the same meaning, the use of the patent description as its own lexicon, and why compliance with a technical standard does not by itself establish infringement. ⏱️ Appeals, Amendments & Front-Loading: The Court of Appeal reinforces strict appeal deadlines, electronic-signature requirements and the need to challenge first-instance findings precisely. Other decisions address late submissions, auxiliary requests, evidence applications and coordination between EPO opposition and UPC litigation. 🔄 Conditional Revocation & Costs: The Court of Appeal confirms that a counterclaim for revocation may be made conditional on a finding of infringement and provides practical guidance for preserving it on appeal. The decisions also reveal continuing disagreement over who should bear the costs of a conditional counterclaim. 🔐 Confidentiality, Compliance & PIs: The week also brings important rulings on confidentiality clubs, attorneys’-eyes-only restrictions, penalties for non-compliance with injunctions, simultaneous interpretation and the reversal of a decision refusing a preliminary injunction. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 34, 2026 🔍 Explore the case law and Unfiltered Commentary on our UPC Intelligence Platform: https://upcintelligence.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/ Disclaimer: This description and the podcast are AI-generated. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.

  4. Aug 17

    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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

See All (77)

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