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. 3D AGO

    Week 09, 2026: Late Evidence, Security Costs, and Procedural Pitfalls

    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.

    48 min

  2. FEB 24

    Week 08, 2026 – Submarines, Tires, and Confidentiality Traps Description:

    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

    40 min

  3. FEB 16

    Week 7, 2026: UPC Unfiltered – Judicial "Magic," Failed Stalling Tactics & The Language Trap

    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

    21 min

  4. FEB 9

    Week 6, 2026: Cross-Border Enforcement Risks & Confidentiality Traps

    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

    17 min

  5. FEB 2

    Week 5, 2026 - No "External Eyes Only" & Appeal Blunders

    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

    28 min

  6. JAN 26

    Week 4, 2026: Cross-Border Reach, Added Matter, & The Suspensive Effect Trap (Week 4, 2026)

    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

    20 min

  7. JAN 19

    Week 3, 2026: Front-Loading Traps, The "German Overload" & Cost Decisions (Week 3, 2026)

    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

    29 min

  8. JAN 13

    UPC Unfiltered: Commercial Access Denied, €50M Penalties & The "Front-Loaded" Reality (Week 2, 2026)

    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

    25 min
See All (50)

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