Advertise on podcast: Willem Hoyng's UPC Unfiltered (AI) Podcast

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 injunctions pending appeal, procedural fairness, litigation costs, confidentiality protections, evidentiary standards, and claim interpretation. In this episode, we cover: ⚖️ Injunctions, Appeals & Procedural Fairness: Key decisions examine the circumstances for suspending injunctions pending appeal, the consequences of EPO revocation, the requirements for valid service and default judgments, and urgency in PI proceedings. 💶 Cost Recovery & Procedural Discipline: Important Court of Appeal guidance addresses the timing of cost proceedings, the need to substantiate reasonable and proportionate legal costs, cost allocation in revocation proceedings, and the importance of observing appeal deadlines. 🔒 Confidentiality, Evidence & Claim Interpretation: The week clarifies how confidentiality protections must be requested and maintained, while exploring functional claim interpretation, strict requirements for proving prior public use, and the assessment of patent validity and infringement. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 45, 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.

This week, our AI hosts break down Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on a new set of Unified Patent Court decisions, with particular attention to two must-read developments concerning springboard damages and public access to confidential documents, alongside preliminary injunctions, patent validity, technical evidence, and UPC case management. In this episode, we cover: 🔒 Public Access & Lasting Confidentiality: Key decisions clarify how confidentiality protections continue during appeals and after proceedings conclude, while exploring the balance between transparency, access to court documents, and the protection of sensitive business information. ⚖️ Springboard Damages & Proportionate Disclosure: The week highlights the boundaries of financial disclosure, the potential relevance of non-infringing sales to damages calculations, and the importance of causation, necessity, and proportionality. 🔍 Preliminary Injunctions, Evidence & Case Management: Several decisions examine urgency, cross-border protection, claim interpretation, inventive step, and technical evidence, while emphasizing the importance of efficient proceedings and well-substantiated arguments. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 44, 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.

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 Arrow declarations, SEP and FRAND litigation, preliminary opinions, patent validity, claim construction, late-filed evidence, and the practical consequences of UPC case management. In this episode, we cover: ⚖️ Arrow Declarations, Divisional Patents & Legal Certainty: A significant decision in Sandoz v Novo Nordisk addresses the UPC’s competence to entertain Arrow declarations, the potential abuse of divisional patent strategies, and the protection of legal certainty against future patent claims. 📡 SEP Litigation, FRAND & Preliminary Opinions: Key decisions examine implementer willingness, FRAND defences, the risk of SEP injunctions, patent invalidity in SEP disputes, and the increasingly important role of preliminary opinions and active case management in preparing oral hearings. 🔍 Claim Construction, Late Evidence & Patent Validity: The week highlights important Court of Appeal guidance on admitting previously rejected evidence, novelty based on reverse-engineering known products, dependent claims, inventive step, infringement by equivalence, and cost recovery in conditional revocation proceedings. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 43, 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.

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 missed procedural deadlines, appeal strategy, evidentiary seizures, confidentiality, patent amendments, cross-border enforcement, and the practical consequences of UPC litigation. In this episode, we cover: ⏱️ Deadlines, appeals & late patent amendments: key decisions highlight refused extensions, missed filing and payment deadlines, failed requests for reinstatement, and the importance of coordinating auxiliary requests between EPO and UPC proceedings. 🔍 Evidentiary seizures, confidentiality & review: several cases examine access to seized evidence, confidentiality of expert reports and the distinction between reviewing a seizure order and challenging disclosure of its results. ⚖️ Cross-Border enforcement, validity & infringement: the week addresses service on foreign defendants, bifurcation and parallel national proceedings, conditions attached to UK injunctions, claim interpretation, inventive step, and the need for timely proof of infringement outside UPC territory. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 42, 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.

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 service, appeal fees, language of proceedings, electronic signatures, claim construction, infringement evidence, appeal deadlines, and second medical use validity. In this episode, we cover: 📄 Service, Settlements & Court Fees: Several decisions address alternative service, appeal-fee reimbursement, settlement withdrawals, return of court fees, and the practical consequences of how proceedings are formally closed. ⚖️ Appeals, Language & Procedural Formalities: The week highlights interim conferences in appeal, language-change appeals, signing requirements, re-establishment of rights and R. 190 appeal deadlines. 💊 Claim Construction, Infringement & Second Medical Use: Key decisions examine added matter, homogeneous mixing in infringement analysis, the role of pointers and motivation, second medical use claims, sufficiency, and obviousness attacks. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 41, 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.

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 conditional counterclaims, appeal strategy, reinstatement, late evidence, interim conferences, litigation value, settlement pressure, access to pleadings, and stays pending parallel revocation proceedings. In this episode, we cover: 🔁 Conditional Counterclaims & Appeal Timing: Key Court of Appeal decisions clarify how defendants must protect conditional counterclaims for revocation on appeal, including reinstatement requests after earlier uncertainty in the case law. ⚖️ Late Evidence, Interim Conferences & Procedure: Several decisions address late-filed material, appeal case management, interim conference discipline and the need for concise, timely procedural requests. ⏸️ Stays, Settlements & Parallel Revocation Strategy: The week also highlights settlement after written proceedings, litigation value in appeal, access-request language issues, mediation, submarine-patent settlement pressure, and refusal to stay appeal proceedings merely because a third party has started a parallel revocation action. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 40, 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.

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 settlement practice, court-fee reimbursement, declarations of non-infringement, opt-out timing, high-value litigation and evidence requests. In this episode, we cover: 🤝 Settlements, Fees & Litigation Value: Several Meta-related cases address withdrawals after settlement, 50% court-fee reimbursement, short settlement stays, and questions around the value of infringement and counterclaim proceedings. ⚖️ DNI Actions & Opt-Out Timing: The week highlights important Court of Appeal guidance on declarations of non-infringement filed before grant, competence based on the Statement of Claim and opt-outs filed too late. 📄Validity, Case Management & Entitlement Evidence: Key decisions examine interim conference preparation, claim interpretation, aggregation of features, the notional skilled person, and R. 190 requirements for entitlement evidence. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 39, 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.

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 and FRAND claims, court-fee reimbursement, late-filed evidence, procedural flexibility, declarations of non-infringement, stays, res judicata, and substantive infringement and revocation strategy. In this episode, we cover: 📡 SEP Settlements, FRAND Claims & Court Fees: Key decisions address FRAND-specific claims, the value of SEP proceedings, rate-setting issues and reduced reimbursement of court fees where cases required substantial court work. ⚖️ Late Evidence, R. 190 & Front-Loaded Procedure: The week highlights late technical reports, R. 190 evidence requests and R. 361 clear-cut dismissal requests. 🧩 DNI Actions, Stays & Substantive Defences: Several cases examine declarations of non-infringement, preliminary objections, stays after EPO developments, res judicata, prior use rights, intermediate generalisation, inventive step, and infringement in non-UPC territories. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 38, 2026 🔍 Explore the case law and Unfiltered Commentary on our UPC Intelligence Platform: UPC Decisions & Expert Commentary | UPC Intelligence Platform Disclaimer: This post and the podcast are AI-generated. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.

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 consolidated defence deadlines, ex parte seizures, preliminary injunction practice, late legal arguments and settlement-related fee reimbursement. In this episode, we cover: 📅 Defence Deadlines & Procedural Efficiency: The week highlights consolidated defence dates for related defendants, the balance between efficiency and fairness, and the risk that strict alignment may create unintended procedural incentives. 🔍 Evidentiary Seizures & Protective Letters: Key guidance addresses ex parte seizure review, the need for plausible infringement, necessity, proportionality and evidence risks. ⚖️ PI Practice, Sufficiency & Late Arguments: The commentary also focuses on preliminary injunction proceedings, functional claim features, sufficiency of disclosure and the tension between legal correctness and front-loaded UPC procedure. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 37, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.