This week, Prof. Willem Hoyng breaks down why a damage claim was entirely dismissed under strict German law. We also uncover the strategic trap of UPC preliminary injunctions during settlements, and why you must explicitly plead Article 71b(3) for non-EU jurisdiction.Cases and topics discussed in this episode:💶 Damages under National Law : German law applied to a damage claim; claim dismissed for lack of evidence (LD Hamburg, Fives v Reel).🤝 Settlement Strategy: Why withdrawing a PI application on appeal is often better than keeping it alive (CoA, Roche v Menarini).🌐 Cross-Border Reach: Jurisdiction outside the UPC territory rejected against non-EU defendants (CoA, Adobe c.s. v Keeex).⏳ Error Correction & Collegiality: Retroactive extension to file upheld after discretionary review (CoA, Align v Angelalign).🌍 Language Battles: Request to switch from English to Italian dismissed (LD Milan, KeyMed v PR Medical).🔓 Confidentiality Traps: Public access granted, but only for specified documents (LD Lisbon, Gowling-Zentiva v Boehringer).📄 Procedural Strictness: Further pleadings refused under Rule 36 (LD Düsseldorf, Hologic v Siemens).📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-11-2026⁠Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated podcast. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views and does not constitute legal advice.

Ask this episode

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

Transcript

Related