Episode 12: UPC Jurisdiction, Strict Deadlines, and Procedural Warnings (Week 23)Stay ahead of the curve with UPC Unfiltered! In this AI-powered edition, our digital hosts dive into Prof. Willem Hoyng's sharp analysis of the Unified Patent Court's key decisions from Week 23.This episode unpacks critical developments impacting patent law in Europe, including:XSYS v Esko-Graphics: A landmark Court of Appeal decision confirming UPC jurisdiction over infringements that occurred even before the court's existence and during a patent's opt-out period.Hanshow v Vusion: A crucial warning from the Court of Appeal on cost procedures, establishing that the one-month deadline to start them is strict and cannot be extended.Hybridgenerator v HG System: A key procedural clarification from the Court of Appeal on who has the power to impose penalties—a full panel, not a single judge.Belkin v Philips: Practical lessons from the Court of Appeal on enforcing judgments, including the setting of reasonable compliance periods and calculating penalty payments.Tiroler Rohre v SSAB: A deep dive into substantive patent law, exploring the Munich Local Division's use of the problem-solution approach and the ongoing debate about the correct methodology for inventive step.Join us as our digital hosts unpack these pivotal rulings, focusing on foundational Court of Appeal precedents, critical warnings on costs, and key debates on substantive law.Prefer the written version? Find Prof. Hoyng's full commentary for Week 23 on the Hoyng Rokh Monegier website.Disclaimer: Our AI-generated voices aim to assist—some details may be off and pronunciations might not be perfect.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related