Week 39: A Full Merits Decision & CoA Rulings on Confidentiality and DeadlinesEpisode Description:Week 39 at the UPC brought major rulings on the merits of a patent case, along with key procedural and confidentiality decisions from the Court of Appeal. Our AI hosts unpack the highlights from Professor Willem Hoyng's expert analysis of the week's most important decisions.Key topics covered in this episode include:Full Merits Decision (Hamburg LD – Nera v Xiaomi): A detailed breakdown of a final decision where a patent was found invalid as granted for added matter. The court held that the surviving auxiliary claims were novel and inventive, but ultimately not infringed.Confidentiality Appeals (CoA – Apple/Ericsson v Asus): Analysis of a Court of Appeal ruling which confirmed that a third party may intervene in an appeal where its own confidential information is at stake, allowing Apple to join the proceedings.Strict Appeal Deadlines (CoA – BEGA v Washtower): A look at the Court of Appeal's strict stance on time limits, highlighted by its decision to reduce a two-week extension request for filing grounds of appeal down to just three working days.Ex Parte Measures (Düsseldorf LD – Otec v Steros): A practical example of the court's power to grant an ex parte inspection and evidentiary seizure at a trade fair, following recent Court of Appeal guidance.For a deeper dive into these cases, read Professor Hoyng's full written commentary for Week 39:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-39-2025/Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices; minor inaccuracies may occur.
--------
14:56
--------
14:56
Week 38 2025: CoA on Unitary Effect Deadlines & Strict Case Management
This week at the UPC saw a series of sharp lessons on procedure and case management. The Court of Appeal confirmed a fatal, non-restorable deadline for Unitary Patent applications, while first-instance divisions cracked down on overly long defensive filings and clarified rules on security for costs and discovery.In this AI-powered episode, our digital hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng's expert analysis of the key decisions from Week 38, 2025.Key topics covered include:Fatal Deadline for Unitary Effect (CoA): A breakdown of the Court of Appeal's decision in Bodycap v EPO, which confirmed the EPO’s refusal of a Unitary Patent after a correction deadline was missed, holding that this time limit cannot be re-established.Overly Long Briefs (Paris LD): An analysis of a powerful case management decision in Merz v Viatris, where a judge ordered a defendant who had filed a 473-page defence to a preliminary injunction application to submit a 70-page summary.Security for Costs (Mannheim LD): A look at the court's reasoning in Total Semiconductor v TI for upholding a security for costs order against a US startup, based on factors like litigation funding and potential US enforcement difficulties.Disclosure of License Agreements (Mannheim LD): In the SEP case of Huawei v MediaTek, the court ordered a claimant to produce license agreements, confirming its power to compel the disclosure of evidence relevant to determining a FRAND rate.For a deeper dive, read Professor Hoyng's full written commentary for Week 38:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-38-2025/Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices – minor inaccuracies may occur.
--------
18:11
--------
18:11
Week 37, 2025: "IKEA-Style" Infringement, Confidential Costs, and Equivalence
This week, our AI hosts break down Professor Willem Hoyng's analysis of the latest UPC decisions. We explore a preliminary injunction from The Hague based on the doctrine of equivalents and a key ruling from Paris on the confidentiality of legal costs. Plus, we dive into a Düsseldorf order on using information in parallel cases and a Mannheim decision on whether selling a product in parts constitutes direct infringement.Key Rulings Discussed:Washtower v Industriebeteiligungs (The Hague LD): Infringement by equivalence.Microsoft v Suinno (Paris CD): Confidentiality of lawyers' invoices.Ona v Google (Düsseldorf LD): Use of confidential information across cases.Haas v Windhager (Mannheim LD): Direct infringement for products sold in parts.For the full in-depth analysis by Prof. Hoyng, visit:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-37-2025/(Disclaimer: This podcast is AI-generated and may contain minor inaccuracies.)
--------
20:40
--------
20:40
UPC UNFILTERED - WEEK 36 2025
In this AI-powered breakdown of Week 36, 2025, our digital hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng's expert analysis on the decisions shaping UPC practice.Key topics covered in this episode include:Late Arguments (Court of Appeal): A look at a Court of Appeal decision confirming the high bar for discretionary reviews and why invalidity grounds that could have been raised earlier with "reasonable diligence" will be rejected. (CeraCon v Sunstar)Security for Costs: Analysis of a Mannheim Local Division order requiring €100,000 in security due to the difficulty of enforcing a judgment in China, even when the claimant has assets in the EU. (Huawei v MediaTek)Preliminary Injunctions: How the Düsseldorf Local Division handles PI requests when a defendant defaults, conducting its own full assessment of the merits but refusing to grant an injunction against a party that has not yet been served. (HP v Zhuhai & Rentmeister)Stays for EPO Oppositions: A clear ruling from the Mannheim Local Division refusing to stay proceedings pending EPO opposition, confirming the UPC's commitment to its own speedy timeline. (Centripetal v Keysight)For a deeper dive, read Professor Hoyng's full written commentary for Week 36:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-36-2025/Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices—minor inaccuracies may occur.
--------
21:43
--------
21:43
UPC UNFILTERED - WEEK 35 2025
UPC UNFILTERED (AI) PODCAST – Episode 24. Highlights include:🔹 Urgency is strict – The Hague LD held that a 9-month delay was much too long. Delay for more than 2-3 months and your PI will be denied.🔹 Transparency is default – Munich LD allowed public access, rejecting “litigation strategy” as a reason for secrecy.🔹 Security for costs – Munich LD required the claimant to post security.🔹 Rejoinder limits – Mannheim LD disregarded arguments not tied to the Reply.📖 Full writtenversion → https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-35-2025/AI-generated podcast — minor inaccuracies may occur.
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
Portugal