Prof. Willem Hoyng comments on 15 new UPC decisions. The Court of Appeal takes centre stage this week with major rulings on preliminary injunctions, costs, courtroom transcripts, language requirements, and jurisdiction.In this episode:— Can you file auxiliary requests in PI proceedings? The Court of Appeal says yes — and explains when and how (Onward v Niche).— Rematec won on appeal, then filed their cost application at the wrong court on the last day of the deadline. A costly mistake that practitioners need to avoid (Rematec v Europe Forestry).— Private stenographers are allowed at oral hearings — and transcripts can be used in foreign proceedings under certain conditions (Amazon v Interdigital).— Your representative doesn't speak the language of the proceedings? That's your problem, not the Court's (Valeo v Robert Bosch).— What does "urgency" really mean in PI cases? The Court of Appeal sets a high bar for defendants trying to argue the patentee waited too long (Sinocare v Abbott).— Prof. Hoyng calls out unnecessary time-wasting: fighting obvious clerical errors and planning live tire-cutting demonstrations in court (Illumina v Element; Pirelli v Sichuan).Read the full written analysis: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-14-2026 Disclaimer: AI-generated podcast. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng's personal views.

Ask this episode

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

Transcript

Related