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. 5d ago

    Week 23 — Security for Costs, Cross-Border Jurisdiction & 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 strong focus on security for costs, cross-border jurisdiction, confidentiality, settlement practice, validity and infringement, and the practical consequences of UPC case management. In this episode, we cover: 💰 Security for Costs, Fees & Settlements: Recent decisions address security for costs, SME status, litigation value, reimbursement of court fees, settlement withdrawals, and the commercial pressure created by UPC litigation. 🌍 Cross-Border Jurisdiction & Non-UPC Territories: The week highlights important developments on jurisdiction over non-UPC designations of patents, UK-related claims, comity, prior user rights, and the practical handling of cross-border infringement actions. 🛠️ Case Management, Confidentiality & Procedural Discipline: Several cases examine disclosure of license agreements, confidentiality regimes, interim conferences, stays, limitation of claims, and the UPC’s focus on avoiding delay while keeping proceedings efficient. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 23, 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.

    38 min

  2. Jun 1

    Week 22 — Case Management, Security for Costs & Enforcement 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 case management, security for costs, settlement practice, evidence production, and the practical consequences of UPC enforcement. In this episode, we cover: ⚖️ Case Management, Appeals & Procedural Discipline: Recent decisions address joined proceedings, preparation for oral hearings, discretionary review requirements, withdrawal of appeals, and the UPC’s expectation that parties present their case clearly and on time. 💰 Security for Costs, Settlements & Court Fees: Several cases highlight security for costs, provisional values of dispute, settlement withdrawals, reimbursement of court fees, and the commercial pressure created by UPC litigation. 🔍 Infringement, Evidence & Equivalence: The week also covers infringement decisions, evidentiary seizures, orders to produce evidence, default judgments, access to pleadings, and the UPC’s developing approach to equivalence. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 22, 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.

    35 min

  3. May 26

    Week 21 — Evidence Measures, Jurisdiction, & UPC 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 evidentiary measures, jurisdiction, confidentiality, settlement practice, cost recovery, and the practical consequences of UPC case management. In this episode, we cover: ⚖️ Evidence Measures, Stays & Procedural Discipline: Recent decisions address evidentiary seizure and inspection orders, refusal of stays, late procedural requests, and the UPC’s continued focus on keeping cases moving within strict procedural boundaries. 🌍 Jurisdiction, Opt-Outs & Cross-Border Litigation: Several cases examine long-arm jurisdiction, non-UPC countries, preliminary objections, opt-out consequences, and the practical difficulties of bringing cross-border patent claims before the UPC. 💰 Confidentiality, Costs & Enforcement: The week also highlights confidentiality regimes, access restrictions, security for costs, default decisions, penalty payments, settlement withdrawals, and the consequences of immediately enforceable UPC orders. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-21-2026⁠ 🔍 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.

    42 min

  4. May 18

    Week 20 — Evidence Production, Confidentiality, & UPC 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, confidentiality, preliminary injunction practice, cost recovery, and the practical consequences of UPC case management. In this episode, we cover: ⚖️ Evidence Production & Inspection Measures: Recent decisions address R. 190 RoP requests, seizure and inspection orders, and the balance between useful evidence-gathering and proportionality during ongoing litigation. 🔐 Confidentiality & Access to Documents: Several cases examine confidentiality regimes, access to pleadings and evidence, attorneys’-eyes-only arrangements, and how confidential material should be handled both during and after proceedings. ⏱️ PI Practice, Urgency & Burden of Proof: The week highlights the burden on PI applicants to prove infringement, the consequences of weak evidentiary support, and the Court’s approach to withdrawal and court-fee reimbursement after a likely unsuccessful PI application. 🛠️ Case Management, Deadlines & Appeals: The decisions also cover hearing-date discipline, extensions, expert-hearing requests, FRAND case management, and procedural questions around review and appeal routes. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-20-2026⁠ 🔍 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.

    36 min

  5. May 11

    Week 19 — Evidence Preservation, Urgency, Costs, & the Practical Discipline of UPC Litigation

    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.

    33 min

  6. May 4

    Week 18 — PI Discipline, Procedural Fairness, & the Limits of Flexibility

    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.

    49 min

  7. Apr 28

    Week 17, 2026 – Procedural Overload, Cost Chaos, and the UPC’s Global Power Struggles

    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

    43 min

  8. Apr 20

    Week 16, 2026 – Strategic Maneuvers: Training Interests, International Jurisdiction, and the Power of Indirect Infringement

    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.

    29 min
See All (64)

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